Splitting the market (Forked from: What D&D is to me, in terms of editions.)

[RFisher]

Forked from: What D&D is to me, in terms of editions.

The only difference to me is that WotC, unlike TSR, isn't producing two significantly different D&D versions at the same time and splitting their own market....

My impression is that AD&D was significantly more popular in the USA and UK while (non-A) D&D was more popular (or perhaps merely easier to get—especially in translated form) elsewhere.

Furthermore...

The vast majority of people I knew who played AD&D had bought a Basic Set. People generally ignored the D&D/AD&D split when buying/using modules and other supplements.

Ignoring the actual reasons behind the split (whether you believe them or not), I’m not sure it was really such bad business.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Yeah; back in the day, we just called it "D&D," and didn't really distinguish. If someone asked "which version," we'd have probably said "AD&D," but my early AD&D had a very healthy chunk of Holmes Basic in it. As the years marched on, my AD&D game became closer to "by-the-book" AD&D (as much as you can get that, anyway), but it was a long process. And even when I was playing AD&D btb, I freely bought and used Classic D&D material with it.

(These days, I'm doing my own thing with OD&D, so I'm back to calling it "D&D" and running it "my way.")

 

[tankschmidt]

In practice, I didn't think there was much splitting of the market at all. My group, like most I think, freely bought and mixed both AD&D and basic D&D source books and adventures. It's not like there was much conversion necessary. We wouldn't even bother switching the base AC from 9 to 10 if we were running a Basic adventure. And we took what we liked from both systems - simple initiative from Basic and separate races and classes from AD&D. I think there's good entry about this exact situation in Jeff's Gameblog.

 

[RFisher]

We wouldn't even bother switching the base AC from 9 to 10 if we were running a Basic adventure.

Sure. Even the AD&D Monster Manual used base 9 AC.

 

[tankschmidt]

Sure. Even the AD&D Monster Manual used base 9 AC.

Wow. Brown and yellow mold are listed as AC 9. I never noticed that, although I guess it makes sense given the order of publication. You learn something new every day. Thanks, Robert.

 

[Dausuul]

I played both, but a lot of the people I played with in college were AD&D only and had little or no acquaintance with the Basic rules.

 

[TerraDave]

There was almost a synergy between the two. You get the boxed sets, but then jump to AD&D, well, you buy the books. Then used AD&D classes, races, and monsters, but essentially "D&D" rules, and probably B/XD&D adventures (since there were like 2 low level AD&D ones). Which probably helped everyone.

The split I think came latter, first with companion, masters, and imortal rules (though those also had things peopled used in their AD&D games, like the war machine), then, especially, with 2nd edition. That just seemed to kill it.

 

[Remathilis]

The "market splitting" didn't happen in the 70s/80s, it happened in the 90s.

Until 2e, most of the rules in Holmes BD&D and Gygax AD&D was really a question of complexity: do you use 3, 5, or 9 alignments, is elf a class or a race, what damage does magic-missile do, etc. You could (with little problem for an experienced DM) run a BD&D group through Against the Giants or a AD&D group through Keep of the Borderlands and the differences would be minor.

However, 2e and BECMI/Rule Cyclopedia showed the schism in much greater relief. An elf (fighter/m-u) in BECMI could cast in armor, an AD&D 2e elf fighter/mage could not. Non-weapon proficiencies, kits, race-like-classes, 20 vs. 36 levels, immortal rules, Realms-themed vs. Mystara themed, and the eventually "dumbing down" of BECMI as a gateway product to 2e made the two games very different, less interchangeable without conversion, and more like two different games than a simple/complex version of the same game it had been years earlier.

 

[haakon1]

I never bought a Basic Set, straight to AD&D. We used Basic & AD&D modules interchangeably, and later on I used 2nd Edition modules after re-writing the NPC's on paper. The monsters generally didn't need extensive re-writes between AD&D and 2nd -- either I kept it as a "new" 2nd Edition monster, or I just switched it for AD&D stats, only writing down the HP and perhaps some tactics and extracted stats -- the MM told you everything you needed in convenient form, but scribbling it down saved some flipping of books.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I know it´s anecdotal evidence, but here in Germany, the split was there. Mostly because no roleplayer i knew really got the difference between D&D and AD&D - D&D wasn´t the most popular game, and the flow of information was often non-existent.
So someone would play a D&D version, then get a late AD&D / AD&D2 supplement, and go "wtf?" When you´re young, you´ve not a lot of patience for conversion, and what looks negligible to an adult could get you fuming in no time. I "inherited" several AD&D books from people who played D&D and couldn´t make head or tails of the rules.