No Second Edition Love?

[Philotomy Jurament]

Big reason right here. Especially if it involves large #'s of giants.

Yeah. I used to modify 1E adventures and run them under 3E, but I've decided that running 1E adventures under 1E or C&C works better with fewer headaches. So that's what I do. The system doesn't really matter...except when it does...

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I never played it. But still--I think it's one of those systems that doesn't have a lot of love. Doesn't necessarily have a lot of hate either--except from 1e purists, just not a lot of love. I think mostly people are kinda ambivalent on it, to be honest with you.

The settings were the best thing 2e brought to the table--although commonly excepted wisdom is that the multitude of settings seriously contributed to the death of TSR as a business.

 

[MerricB]

A fad, as I understand it (with some marketing classes under my belt back in undergrad) was a product release that focused on fast sales, and one that changed often to remain novel. Fads tend to generate fast sales but drop off quickly, which are then replaced by a slightly different but equally fadish product.

Ah, like AD&D!

I think each edition of the game has had its "fad" phase, where a lot of people have bought it *regardless* of its worth (although I think 2E had the smallest "fad" phase). I know AD&D (1e) certainly had a time when it was the "hot new thing". Even before 2e came around, several people I know that played the game had given it up.

3E doesn't come close to your definition of fad, as it - being the core books - focused on ongoing sales. Supplements are a different matter, and being supplements, they don't really belong to a "fad" idea; rather they have few evergreen sales (with some exceptions: the Complete series in particular).

Cheers!

 

[Aaron L]

As if roleplaying only springs from narration and simulation and not actual gameplay!

I cannot conceive of any kind of separation between narration, simulation, and gameplay. If you have no "simulation" knowledge of the world your character exists in then it is damn near impossible to accurately roleplay a character who lives in that world, unless your idea of "roleplaying" is saying "my guy gets drunk with the loot he just got, when do we go back into the dungeon?" Likewise, it is impossible to play a roleplaying game without narrating what is going on, either as a character narrating what his character is doing and saying, or especially a DM narrating the entire rest of the world.

 

[Aaron L]

Q: "I read a lot of posts here and elsewhere, and the general "edition war" boils down to 1e vs. 3e.

Where's the second edition love?"

Where indeed. :\

It just goes to show you, although it was assumed the switch to 2E by TSR (from 1E) was a good business decision (this switch actually started with DL during the late 1E period), it turns out it both sunk the company, and its players speak of it in past tense, and unlike 1E seems to be pretty much a dead system. That said 2E did make TSR alot of money quickly (it just couldn't keep up long term). One can only wonder what would have happened if Gary had kept control of TSR. If the model continued to be: support 1E with new modules, but create new role playing games for all the other genres and focus on capturing control of those markets. Instead, 2E pushed most players out of D&D and into other game systems (less hokey and story based).

I think 2E was a fad. It was the pumping out of tons of untested romance novel style modules that only appealed to a small percentage of the original D&D players. Although this effectively shrunk the number of D&D players, it drastically increased sales (because those that were left were prone to buying anything released by TSR). But the problem with this strategy was that 2E was fad based, and it was nec. to constantly invent new things to keep people buying. Eventually this pool of players grew too small to support the company. Whats going on with 3E is somewhat similar IMO. Once again WOTC is finding itself pumping out new material to a smaller percentage of players but one which buys anything official without much question (you know who you are ). This increases sales but shrinks the base of players (who don't care for the increased complexity and flooding of new material). Eventually there won't be enough people playing 3E anymore to buy their new support material. Once that critical mass is hit they'll release 4E and continue with this same 2E model.

The 2 competing models are: slow and steady (early 1E) with lower profit goals, and fast and irregular (late 1E through 2E) make alot of money before the market crashes. As it turns out, 2Es model was the one that proved best suited for the market. This will be esp. true now with the numbers of competing games floating around, and having to compete with online computer role playing games (novel by definition).

Its the lightbulb burning bright and fast with a short life vs. the Thomas Edison dim bulbs still going after all this time.

Really, your "1E is God" posts are getting annoying.

1E was a fad by every accepted definition of the word, FAR more than either 2E or 3E. Just ask anyone who played it back in the day when it was popular but doesn't play now. Why do you think that the early 80's saw many times the numbers of gamers that we have now? Because D&D was a FAD back then. Once the faddish trendiness and novelty wore off, it stabilized into what it is now and became a hobby.

Watch "I Love the 80's" on VH1. Listen to all the people talking about the FAD of D&D in the early 80's and how they remembered playing it back in the day, and express surprise that it's still around and didn't go the way of 8 tracks.


And do you really think that the 1E sales model wasn't about trying to sell the game to as many people as possible? 1E and earlier was essentially Gygax and a bunch of guys who had come up with a new game and were desperately trying to figure out what to do with it and how to market it, all the while riding the wave of the fad it had become. If they'd had 20+ years of RPG business models and experience under their belts they would have done exactly what modern game companies do now.

And how did it reduce the number of players but drastically increase sales? That is self contradictory and makes no sense. TSR drove itself into the ground by releasing products that competed with each other. If it'd had "drastically increased sales" it wouldn't have gone under. TSR didn't pay attention to what was selling and just made whatever it wanted without regard to what people were buying, and it did this from the very beginning. Just read Ryan Dancey's report where he says he saw piles of modules and books from the very beginning of the 2E era. It wasn't some orchestrated "get rich quick" fad scheme, it was poor management, lack of knowledge of their market, and arrogance.

TSR only wished that 2E was a fad like 1E was.

The number of D&D players had already shrunk once the FAD of D&D wore off. 2E didn't reduce the numbers of players, the public got tired of the latest fad and got a new one several years before 2E came out.

 

[Piratecat]

Really, your "1E is God" posts are getting annoying.

Aaron, your post really didn't need the personal attack at the top in order to make its point. You can disagree with someone without having to personally slam them -- honest.

 

[tx7321]

1E is God... Diaglo would disagree. Merric: "I know AD&D (1e) certainly had a time when it was the "hot new thing".

Aaron and MerricB, certainly 1E was a new craze (it was the first wide spread FRPG afterall), and in that way a fad. However, when the game was first on the scene it was a stable system, it wasn't marketed as a fad (with flashy new material released on a regular basis). I'm sure Monopoly was a Fad when it was first released, right? There was a difference (before the termoil and Gygax ouster).
We didn't see the "gotta have this new product" model going on. What we saw were new modules (with pretty conservative covers), Dragon, and smaller supplements. UA and Dragonlance were (I believe) the first big "gotta have it" products that started the ball rolling. If you can't see a difference between the way TSR was run between early 1E TSR (Gygax in control) and late 1E and then 2E TSR (Gygax out)...well I don't know what to tell yah. All I can say is I do see a difference. Your statement about how Gygax would have made different choices in the begining if he had 20 years of FRPG markets to look at, is neither here nor there. perhaps he would have (who knows)...my point is he didn't (for what ever reason).


Merric: "3E doesn't come close to your definition of fad, as it - being the core books - focused on ongoing sales. Supplements are a different matter, and being supplements, they don't really belong to a "fad" idea; rather they have few evergreen sales (with some exceptions: the Complete series in particular)."

3E puts out alot of material that does effect the core. A trip to the gaming store this last weekend overloaded the senses. I could barely find the C&C material I was looking for. They flood the market with new supplements. Your right, most don't come off as Fad (its not just pretty covers with blah inside), so I retract that statement. That said, WOTC set up 3E to create a cash flow through constant release of new supplements that effect the core game (not just adventures, monsters, magic etc.) so its "gotta have that new prestige class, new feat etc." so is, in a way, Fadish (by the definition I posted to PirateCat).


TSRs early growth strategy was to focus on supporting 1E and creating new games for different genre (sci-fi, western, horror). That changed with late TSR (post Gygax).
1E did go Fad with Dragonlance and some of the later books, but early on it was the 3 core books and supporting modules.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my assessment. As PirateCat suggests, the term "fad" is somewhat subjective (even in the music and clothing businesses). Each person has to look at the body of work generated for each period and make their own decisions. I only stated my observations. That doesn't mean you can't draw a different conclusion.

There was an interesting article I read someplace (I'm sure someone else could post the link) describing the differences between the typical board game market, and the book publishing market (what FRPGs really fall into). I think early on TSR hoped AD&D would be one feather in a cap of many FRPG games like it; but the economics of publishing required its flagship to continously change to sell new books (so instead of being a stable system like Monopoly, it had to drastically change every few years). When 1E first came on the scene I think the dynamics of the market weren't really that understood. Also, I don't think the company really expected to grow the way it did. Once the engine was their it needed more fuel then ever to keep it running. It wasn't any longer a few guys in a basement, it was something much bigger.

 

[tx7321]

Aaron: "And how did it reduce the number of players but drastically increase sales? That is self contradictory and makes no sense."

I don't have any hard numbers, no one does (no one did a survey back then). I can only speak for those I personally knew playing D&D. For the most part, people who played AD&D1E had the 3 core books and usually the MM2 and FF (a few DD) and 3 or 4 modules, that was it. Most of the dungeons we went on were home made. We, as a group, weren't out to add to our system, we were into our own home brewed worlds.

When Dragon Lance and then 2E came out, most of the guys I new were turned off. However, a few within each of the groups I knew went googoo over this new stuff. They purchased like crazy, not just happy with a few books and modules, but everything (including the novels) it seemed very series based. It was something to see. And no, the early 1Eers never went this buying crazy (for what ever reason).

I'd say of the guys I knew who played 1E, about 30% switched over to 2E in a big way. The rest kept playing 1E (sitting in with 2E when they had to) till they got so turned off stopped playing altogether. Still, if you look at the profits for TSR over that same time period sales were up and the revenues grew. So, anyway, yeah, from what I experianced fewer people I knew were playing 2E, but purchased far more then we (as a bigger group) did before 2E. But perhaps you guys experianced just the opposite.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

I started on the Moldvay Basic and Expert boxed sets as a kid, and went to AD&D by way of 2E when it first came out. It was...weird. Don't get me wrong, I did love it, but it never quite captured the sense of...possiblity...that OD&D did, nor the "danger" that I felt when looking through the 1e books (or the time I actually got to play it).

It did what it needed to do, but I was pretty much through with RPGs until I discovered Vampire (right when V:tM 2e came out). Funnily enough, right when I was getting burned out on White Wolf, 3rd Ed. was announced. WotC put out a small rules addendum to add some 3rd ed feel to your 2e game. It was awesome. My players and I dove into the most fun we'd had RPing in a long time.

3rd Ed brought that feeling of newness and wonder back. While some posters have mentioned "3rd ed rules, 1st ed feel," I've tried to get that, but with the "2e" epic feel.

Each edition has its awesomeness. It's just a matter of finding it.

 

[MerricB]

1E is God... Diaglo would disagree. Merric: "I know AD&D (1e) certainly had a time when it was the "hot new thing".

Craze is a much better word than fad in this context; thanks. I was looking for such a word, and just couldn't think of it. (No edition of D&D is released as a "fad").

We didn't see the "gotta have this new product" model going on. What we saw were new modules (with pretty conservative covers), Dragon, and smaller supplements.

Actually, we didn't see smaller supplements (as such). Mostly new modules and Dragon magazine - Dragon was the only place for new rules material, which is probably one reason it was so popular during that time.

3E puts out alot of material that does effect the core. A trip to the gaming store this last weekend overloaded the senses. I could barely find the C&C material I was looking for. They flood the market with new supplements.

If it were merely a fad, there wouldn't be so many supplements overloading your senses, as the lifespan would be shorter. Wizards produce about 2 books a month, which while a lot from an AD&D perspective, isn't really that much (certainly not from a 2E perspective!)

That said, WOTC set up 3E to create a cash flow through constant release of new supplements that effect the core game (not just adventures, monsters, magic etc.) so its "gotta have that new prestige class, new feat etc." so is, in a way, Fadish (by the definition I posted to PirateCat).

Wizards do get revenue from constantly releasing new material. I wonder if this is a gamer thing (most profits are in the first 2 months) or a phenonomen with everything - I suspect the latter.

I think early on TSR hoped AD&D would be one feather in a cap of many FRPG games like it; but the economics of publishing required its flagship to continously change to sell new books (so instead of being a stable system like Monopoly, it had to drastically change every few years). When 1E first came on the scene I think the dynamics of the market weren't really that understood. Also, I don't think the company really expected to grow the way it did. Once the engine was their it needed more fuel then ever to keep it running. It wasn't any longer a few guys in a basement, it was something much bigger.

D&D has a big difference from the book market: the D&D core books aren't really consumables. With most book buyers, they get the book, read it, and then put it away and buy another book. With D&D, they get the core game, play it, then play it again, and again, and again...

What distinguishes D&D from other games even more is the time investment required. If you play D&D anything like most people, you play it in a campaign that takes 4 hours per session, and many, many sessions! That's quite different to other games, where play is discreet, and not ongoing.

The closest we have in the present age is World of Warcraft, and that, of course, derives from D&D. Where WoW is better is the subscription fee, so the makers can keep making money from the game! No such luck with D&D!

With a boardgame, you can own several games because to play one doesn't exclude you from playing another on the same day or the next day. (So says the gamer who's bought 15+ boardgames in the past year or so...) Meanwhile, the D&D player has a game, and then wants to return to another D&D game. Although play of Top Secret or Star Frontiers could be possible, the RPG structure works against it, if simply for the effort needed to learn the game (both as a player and especially as a DM).

I think it was about 1983 that TSR really lost Gygax as a guiding force, as he was sidelined before he left in 1985... so, Gygax was there during the initial growth period of D&D. We never really got to see him sustaining the game, which needs a different strategy, of course.

As an aside, post-1983, I don't see any real classic adventures. The latter Gygaxian efforts (Dungeonland, Isle of the Ape) are a bit too whimsical, IMO. And T1-4 was... disappointing.

As Gary noted, Unearthed Arcana was created to build revenue quickly, and it did so. That it also set the pattern for 3e releases is not unnoted: players like new rules material!

Cheers!