So with

[taks]

uh, they are a business, ya know, right?

 

taks

[Dark_Raven]

That is why they sell stories, game accessories, expansions, etc.

[Gromnir]

Good Fun! is using good old AD&D rules. Beyond me why they wanted to change rule sets other than steal make money from PnP game players.

 

inconsistencies. conflicts. slow leveling. unbalanced. etc. such stuff not bother lifelong fans and hardcore nerd, but it made new d&d pnp fans few and far between.

 

"PS: i should add, in my pnp days, which were not very lengthy, and quite a long time ago, i never played high levels, either. i don't recall getting high enough to even cast 5th level spells until playing on a computer."

 

is arguable that success of baldur's gate actually prolonged life of ad&d, 'cause sales had been in slow decline since mid eighties. d&d were dying a slow death. 3e were not simply a marketing ploy, but rather a desperate attempt wotc to keeps from having to abandon d&d publishing altogether. baldur's gate were the first big d&d crpg success in many years, and it managed to make folks like taks, people who maybe hadn't played d&d in a long time, regain curiosity 'bout d&d. 'course we doubt that most o' the takites went out and bought all the ad&d modules and rules books to sate their newfound curiosity neither.

 

...

 

3e were needed to save d&d... and it were initially a success. "simple, streamlined and balanced." became a mantra for wotc folks pre 3e release. ad&d scared off new pnp players in part 'cause it were so seemingly arcane. d&d were fodder for geeks with pocket protectors and no social life. taks could play on a computer where all the number crunching took place in an instant and behind the scenes, but would he and his compatriots really search out opportunities to play in pnp sessions with a bunch o' pimply faced losers?

 

the thing is that while 3e were much more rational, coherent and simple than ad&d when it were first released, it no longer is. each times wotc published a new d&d product they added prestige classes and playable races and weapons and spells and... stuff. after years o' releasing such garbage, 3e had become nearly as convoluted and complex as were ad&d at the time of it's demise.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Stephen Amber]

d&d were dying a slow death. 3e were not simply a marketing ploy, but rather a desperate attempt wotc to keeps from having to abandon d&d publishing altogether.

 

They had just purchased d&d after TSR went bankrupt. I suppose they could have abandoned it by not making the purchase. And, ironically, wotc is responsible more than anything for d&d's '90s demise due to magic: the gathering sales. A card game TSR actually tried to compete against with inferior products like Spellfire, and even a planescape card game. TSR was publishing all sorts of junk that wasn't selling towards the end... Birthright and such.

[Kelverin]

the thing is that while 3e were much more rational, coherent and simple than ad&d when it were first released

You keep spewing this garbage like it is a fact. Any proof to back up what you say? Try to answer the question without going off on a tangent or personal insults...If you can.

[taks]

'course we doubt that most o' the takites went out and bought all the ad&d modules and rules books to sate their newfound curiosity neither.

nope, though i did eventually get a few things for my nephew. BG did bring D&D back into my life without a doubt.

 

taks could play on a computer where all the number crunching took place in an instant and behind the scenes, but would he and his compatriots really search out opportunities to play in pnp sessions with a bunch o' pimply faced losers?

hehe, the few i know that play D&D are actually quite the opposite. hard-core drinkers that i shoot pool with is a better way to look at them. of course, i hardly fit the engineer mold, either.

 

uh, not sure where you've been kelverin, but 3E was definitely much more rational and coherent than any AD&D product prior. whether or not it was better is a much more subjective story, of course (like i said, i liked 2E just because that's what i used to pnp with).

 

taks

[taks]

That is why they sell stories, game accessories, expansions, etc.

none of which gaurantee sales. the core rules will all be bought by at least one player per group that plays. it would be a foolish business decision to not publish your bread and butter, which means you gotta update every once in a while.

 

taks

[Gromnir]

the thing is that while 3e were much more rational, coherent and simple than ad&d when it were first released

You keep spewing this garbage like it is a fact. Any proof to back up what you say? Try to answer the question without going off on a tangent or personal insults...If you can.

 

 

tell you what, go through and dredge up posts by obsidian developers on the matter... maybe you believe them more. regardless, multi-class rules and dual class rules in ad&d make more sense compared to 3e versions? hey, how many hps does a fighter/wizard/thief get at level up anyways? at 11th level, how many hit die does a ad&d pc got? dunno, 'cause it depends on what class he is. why? exceptional strength? huh? reduction o' innumerable weapon types and abandoning of weapon speeds (which virtually nobody used anyways) were more complex in 3e? bab, save throws, level progression relative to cr ratings? the 3e or ad&d versions make more sense... and which were more simple?

 

bah.

 

as we said, you ain't gonna believe Gromnir anyways. were actually sad to watch when the die hards argue with josh on the matter o' ad&d strengths v. 3e, 'cause reason is never part o' the equation.

 

and you deserve to be insulted if you honestly wanna argue coherence, simplicity and rationality o' ad&d over 3e. for chrissakes, as been noted numerous times already, the organic and haphazard development o' ad&d precluded such an outcome... not that such things were goals o' ad&d. tell gygax back in 1982 that ad&d weren't simple, coherent and rational and no doubt he woulda' answered, "So what?"

 

...

 

argue that simplicity, coherence and rationality is overrated? sure. but argue that ad&d were more rational or coherent than 3e is just plain delusional. *chuckle* take one look at exp progression table in 3e compared to the class specific tables o' ad&d and try to argue with a straight face.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Every game system has its strengths and its weaknesses. In the end it just a matter of preferences. I prefer 3.5e over 2e or even 4e, and I probably won't even bother playing or running a 4e game.

[Volourn]

"Remember Rule One?

 

My beef with new D&D is the corporate sameness of it. "

 

Then your beef is silly because all Rule One still applies. It always applies. Nobody is gonna knock at your door, and tell you to play a certain way. L0L

 

 

"tell you what, go through and dredge up posts by obsidian developers on the matter..."

 

You make it sound like just because Obsidian thinks a certain way it must be true. Which is funny consideirng how you spend your time mocking them for their decisions in game development. Besdies, I doubt every single Obsidian employee believes the exact same thing. That's 100+ people. They're not all going to agree on every issue.

[Dark_Raven]

That is why they sell stories, game accessories, expansions, etc.

none of which gaurantee sales. the core rules will all be bought by at least one player per group that plays. it would be a foolish business decision to not publish your bread and butter, which means you gotta update every once in a while.

 

taks

Their stories (novels) always sell. We can never have enough Drizzt and Elminster books.

[Gromnir]

"You make it sound like just because Obsidian thinks a certain way it must be true."

 

where did we say that? we did make it sound like we thinks that bucket head would be more likely to believe obsidian than Gromnir.

 

clown.

 

the obsinaties is often wrong, but the appeal to authority crap is strong, and chances are that people will be convinced by josh more readily than Gromnir. is simply human nature. the thing is that with the 3e v. ad&d stuff, the die hards don't listen to anybody. again, 3e has many flaws, but it is so damnably obvious that it is more rational, simple and coherent than ad&d that fact that we is having such an argument beggars the imagination.

 

"Besdies, I doubt every single Obsidian employee believes the exact same thing."

 

actually, Gromnir would be very much surprised if any obsidian developer agreed that ad&d were the more simple, coherent and rational rule system. maybe an art guy...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Killian Kalthorne]

Damn those art guys.

[steelfiredragon]

gosh....( read again with a goofy voice in mind)

[Monte Carlo]

:: sigh ::

 

The argument is moot. The new 4E iteration of the rules is so far removed from the origins of the game that it now lives in name only.

 

And Gromnir is palpably right when he says that (1) 3E was initially more streamlined than AD&D and (2) By the end it was as complex as AD&D.

 

Why?

 

Splatbook-mania. It's always been the death of each edition and it'll kill 4E too. The business model demands it... you've got to sell more supplements.

 

I think a brief history less is required to clarify this -

 

1. Chainmail - a fantasy wargame. Squad Leader with swords. Gygax, Arneson and the rest decided to imbue some units with extra stats to make things more interesting. Gamers took to it with gusto and all sorts of supplements were generated to support this odd little game. Thus....

 

2. D&D (the "Grey Box" set, the first D&D game many of us ever played). Again, very sketchy, the rules where all over the place. It was a niche product, and the spirit of make-it-up-as-you-go-along was very strong.

 

3. AD&D came along in the late 70's early 80's (1st Ed) to (as I said before) attempt to codify all these other rules. Stuff like THACO, dual-classing, multi-classing, race-based level caps, XP tables for separate classes, THACO bonus tables for different weapons versus different armour types, somatic spell components and wandering prostitute tables all came in and gave us nose bleeds). TSR took off, there was a religious furore about the game, it appeared in ET (yadda yadda) and the game became a small but deep footprint in our cultural consciousness.

 

4. 2E came along on a tide of campaign settings, novels, splatbooks. Why? It was a booming and profitable business. Basic / Expert D&D was launched as a retro "Basic D&D" product. I gave up at this point and played RuneQuest instead. TSR was riven by an epic management battle between Gygax and Lorraine Williams which can be read about in gory detail elsewhere if you Google it.

 

5. Video killed the Radio Star, or rather the PC killed the pen and paper gaming group. CRPGs saw P&P hit a bit of a glut by the late 80's / early 90's. Gold box games notwithstanding, I'm not joking, whatsoever, when I say that Bioware completely rescued D&D's arse with BG1. Ever since, P&P gaming has borrowed more computer game memes, 4E being a classic example - oh the irony! A CRPG / MMO designed to be played as a P&P game as opposed to a P&P game designed to be played on the 'puter!

 

6. WoTC had a real drama on their hands in 1999/2000 when 3E was launched. I was a regular on the Eric Noah 3E boards out of curiosity at the time. I think Monte Cook and the others did an excellent job of keeping 3E recognisably 'D&D' whilst making it more elegant and easy-to-use, driving a stake through the heart of the wierd bundles of rules that had accumulated since the late 70's and wouldn't die. I really hoped that this was it: an iteration of the game that would be as popular and durable as 1E / 2E and last as long.

 

7. But, alas, the curse of the D&D marketing model struck. People had hoped that the cliche ****tail that was the FR would remain a 2E throw-back. Oh no, it returned. So did class sourcebooks, prestige classes, bizarre creature templates so you could create a vampiric Dire Fiendish half-minotaur with Draconic blood (yawn). You could buy an ew ruleset of "Pasta Sauces of Faerun" and argue with the guy who wanted to use a rule from it. It was 1980 all over again. Don't even get me started on 3.5.

 

In conclusion, 1E and 2E didn't make sense. It was a decades worth of compromise on house rules condensed into a system propped up by splatbooks. The exact same thing has happened to 3E between 2000 and 2008, not a disimilar timescale, ergo my view that it's the marketing model that breaks every iteration of the game.

 

I've only touched on the impact of 'puters, and not even mentioned the D20-Borg aspect but that's for another time.

 

Cheers

MC

[Kelverin]

tell you what, go through and dredge up posts by obsidian developers on the matter... maybe you believe them more.

Nope, I'd rather take the word of someone who does not have a vested interest.

 

regardless, multi-class rules and dual class rules in ad&d make more sense compared to 3e versions?

hey, how many hps does a fighter/wizard/thief get at level up anyways? at 11th level, how many hit die does a ad&d pc got? dunno, 'cause it depends on what class he is. why?

 

Never been a fan of multi-classing in any form. You are right, they are confusing, and the fact it was made easier and became more prevalent is a big weakness in 3rd edition, but that is another argument.

exceptional strength? huh? reduction o' innumerable weapon types and

abandoning of weapon speeds (which virtually nobody used anyways) were more complex in 3e? bab, save throws, level progression relative to cr ratings? the 3e or ad&d versions make more sense... and which were more simple?

 

They are equally not instinctive, or simple in my book, but I

Edited August 18, 2008 by Kelverin

[Gromnir]

"They were tipped in the balance of

[Nightshape]

"Way too removed from previous editions to be even considered Dungeons and Dragons."

 

No.

Yes.

Maybe?

[Stephen Amber]

2. D&D (the "Grey Box" set, the first D&D game many of us ever played). Again, very sketchy, the rules where all over the place. It was a niche product, and the spirit of make-it-up-as-you-go-along was very strong.

 

3. AD&D came along in the late 70's early 80's (1st Ed) to (as I said before) attempt to codify all these other rules. Stuff like THACO, dual-classing, multi-classing, race-based level caps, XP tables for separate classes, THACO bonus tables for different weapons versus different armour types, somatic spell components and wandering prostitute tables all came in and gave us nose bleeds). TSR took off, there was a religious furore about the game, it appeared in ET (yadda yadda) and the game became a small but deep footprint in our cultural consciousness.

 

There was the basic game which they wrote products for though out the 80's, and which you neglected to mention in your timeline here. Of course I speak of the colored boxed sets, starting with the red one and the famous Elmore painting, and ending with the quaint gold box and it's odd rules for immortals. This game actually was very simple with concepts like multi-classing, and other things, not existing at all. Anyways, any d&d timeline which neglects to mention these is grossly incomplete as 80's kids by the thousands got their start with the colored boxes.