* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : 2 Questions Started at 04-05-05 10:04 AM by WizzyBlackmore Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=407968 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-05-05 10:04 AM Thread Title : 2 Questions In telling some friends about D&D, they ask about it being a computer game....I remember in the early 90's a roomate played it on computer....so....where is the pencil paper game these days in terms of popularity??? and Is the WOC version of D&D really D&D?....Seems like a totally bastardized version of the original....kind of like Queen (the band) now touring w/ Paul Rodgers (singer of Bad Company).....not good..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-05-05 11:14 AM In telling some friends about D&D, they ask about it being a computer game....I remember in the early 90's a roomate played it on computer....so....where is the pencil paper game these days in terms of popularity??? Gary has stated at various times (and you can ask him in his discussion thread at the Dragonsfoot forums or ENWorld's forum for him) that D&D in the 80's had about 3.5 million players worldwide. I've heard from other sources that it currently boasts 1.7 million. So "Still popular, but not nearly as." Of course this is endemic of all pen and paper RPGs thanks in part to CCGs, computer games and clickbase games taking a lot of hobby dollars. and Is the WOC version of D&D really D&D? *snip* No, not really. The names of the mechanics of the game are the same - hit point, armor class, STR, DEX etc., but the underlying rules bear no resemblence to their predecessors beyond that. For example, once upon a time, you could take a creature from, say, AD&D 1st edition and "port" it into the Dave Cook edited basic/expert D&D rules with little to no change. Add a "morale" stat and change the alignment from the nine-alignment system to the three alignment system and by adding a bracketed notation, even simplify that) and presto, you were done. The convoluted machinery behind d20 Fantasy makes porting like that impossible. Now you have to start with the creature's name and general concept and start the math-intensive process of building it in. It's about as easy to move from older versions of D&D to d20 Fantasy as it is to directly port things from older versions of D&D to ICE's HERO System due to the differences in the rules. EDIT: Of course, given the above "3rd edition" is more than a little confusing: Third edition of what? The game isn't AD&D any longer, and if you count the basic/expert rules of D&D as variants of "original D&D", there have been far, far more than three editions of those rules. So I feel that the "3rd Edition" was, like the "Greyhawk is the default setting" just a marketing ploy (read: lie) to draw in old gamers. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-05-05 12:32 PM I am with DungeonDelver on this one. While "a bastardized version of the game" would be a way to describe it, in reality it really is an entirely different game that happens to have a few familiar names across the books,such as saving throws, tarrasque, XP points, etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Elendur Date : 04-05-05 02:24 PM In telling some friends about D&D, they ask about it being a computer game....I remember in the early 90's a roomate played it on computer....so....where is the pencil paper game these days in terms of popularity???D&D is alive and well, and I think it will be whether someone is publishing it or not. I think there is a core group of people who grew up playing it who are never going to stop. Is the WOC version of D&D really D&D?....Seems like a totally bastardized version of the original....kind of like Queen (the band) now touring w/ Paul Rodgers (singer of Bad Company).....not good..... I suppose it depends on what you think "real" D&D is. I think the current edition is "real" D&D, and loads of fun. I don't have any trouble incorporating stuff from all editions into my game. If you are looking for advice as to what current products you might like based on a "classic" perspective, I might have some suggestions. If you are just asking for some more 3e bashing, I'll leave that to the experts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : Attila Date : 04-05-05 06:30 PM Just like the 70's was the decade of the boardgame, the 80's was the decade of D&D and RPGs. Unfortunately nothing will ever restore D&D to its former glory as new technology has taken away most of its market. As far as WOC D&D being D&D, that depends on your definition of DnD. If you see it as a game about playing an adventurer that explores dark dungeons, kills monsters, takes the loot and saves the girl--then WOC D&D is D&D. If you view DnD only as a specific mathematical system created for AD&D then it is not D&D. It just depends on whether you look at the spirit of the game or the mathematics. I believe there was much the same controversey when AD&D came out. Dave Arneson and fans went one direction and Gary Gygax and followers went another. The spirit was the same, it just depended on which system you liked. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-05-05 06:37 PM As far as WOC D&D being D&D, that depends on your definition of DnD. If you see it as a game about playing an adventurer that explores dark dungeons, kills monsters, takes the loot and saves the girl--then WOC D&D is D&D. If you view DnD only as a specific mathematical system created for AD&D then it is not D&D. It just depends on whether you look at the spirit of the game or the mathematics. By that rationale, if I call my HERO System fantasy campaign "Dungeons & Dragons", then it's D&D. Or if I call my Runequest fantasy campaign "Dungeons & Dragons" etc. There's no quantum difference between OD&D, AD&D, the various forms of "Basic" D&D (Holmes basic, Cook/Moldvay basic/Expert, Mentzer Basic/Expert, the Rules Compendium) and 2nd edition AD&D - even the skills and powers dreck for the latter could be seamlessly removed. d20 Fantasy is a completely different game, I don't care what WotC calls it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : Attila Date : 04-05-05 06:51 PM All of the stats, races, classes, monster types are the same whether you're talking AD&D or 3e. It's just a matter of how you determine success or failure with a ST or hit and miss with AC. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree then. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-05-05 06:54 PM Its certainly D&D. Its just not the same D&D. I do agree that "third edition" makes no sense, regardless of how you view it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-05-05 07:35 PM I think 3rd edition is D&D. It's just a form of D&D with a few of the rules different than the earlier editions. Both are fun to play if you get a good DM and group. Frankly, I'll play it all if given a chance. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-05-05 08:03 PM All of the stats, races, classes, monster types are the same whether you're talking AD&D or 3e. It's just a matter of how you determine success or failure with a ST or hit and miss with AC. No, they're fundamentally different beyond a general european/pseudo-medieval fantasy genre. The list of differences would go well beyond the scope of this discussion, however. Looks like we will have to agree to disagree then. Indeed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-06-05 12:12 AM IMO Gygax, Holmes, Moldavay, Cook, etc....were all on the same page in terms of maintaining the true core integrity and quality of the game....... These guys had created, it seems sub-editions w/in a cohesive set of parameters up until around '83-'87?.....I don't know if 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed. or 3.5 Ed can come close to matching the original intentions of the authors..... ....With that said....I suspect that when TSR was bought by Hasbro the game changed from a vinyl record to a compact disc.......not necessarily in convenience but in quality* and integrity. * analogy only works if you are aware that music released on vinyl sounds better on vinyl than compact disc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-06-05 12:20 AM Moldvay / Cook's D&D certainly stands as propably the clearest, most accessible and easiest D&D made. The Rules Cyclopedia stands as the example of how a D&D rulebook should be done ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Attila Date : 04-06-05 07:38 AM No one ever said AD&D was hard. Let me repost the original quote for you. Moldvay / Cook's D&D certainly stands as propably the clearest, most accessible and easiest D&D made. I think you'd have a tough time arguing otherwise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : Warlord Nabron Date : 04-10-05 04:54 AM The real problem with any role-playing game is how to keep people buying products. How many books have to be bought before someone realizes, "Gee, all I need are these 4 or 5 books and my own fertile imagination, and I'm set for life..." The D&D Rules Cyclopedia is a phenomenal book. If you have a copy of it, you might never need to buy another RPG rule book in your entire life. Great for us hard-core old-timers, but very bad news if you were a full-time game-designer at T$R 10 or so years ago, don't you think? The one thing that might happen in the future to make things even rougher for the RPG industry would be to bring actual *role-playing*, rather than just hacking and slashing, into those computer games. However, what if the next evolution lets DMs design adventures that the players can complete online, complete with all the problem solving and role-playing of the "good ol' days?" -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : Habronicus Date : 04-14-05 01:23 AM In telling some friends about D&D, they ask about it being a computer game....I remember in the early 90's a roomate played it on computer....so....where is the pencil paper game these days in terms of popularity??? I suppose pen and paper D&D may have lost some popularity, as at the time there was all that fuss about the game being "anti-religious" (in business, bad publicity is better than no publicity), there was a cartoon series on tv, some tv ads, computers weren't as "mainstream" as they are today, etc. However, WotC attempt at making D&D more "computer-friendly" may pay itself in the long run. For good or ill, humankind is slowly replacing imagination for hard set rules - you can apply this to any area of life, not just games - so I see future RPGs combined with computers. For instance, instead of buying 3 hardcover books and gather a few friends around a table, like you do today, you might just get yourself a PDA with installed core rules and the ability to shop and download supplements and adventures through it. You can then connect online with your friends and play on the PDA screen, regardless of physical location. Will that be "pen and paper" RPG? No. Will that "kill" pen and paper RPGs? Not anytime soon, I bet. There will always be people who prefer the "real thing", but they're are bound to fade into rarity. That's my take on it, anyway... Is the WOC version of D&D really D&D? Is Nirvana's "Nevermind" the same as "Incesticide"? No, they're quite different, but they still have the Nirvana sound. Same with RPGs. They are dynamic games. Unless you're a Rules Lawyer (may they burn in the bowels of a Balrog), you can't really draw lines around what's D&D and what's not. The game evolved and became more "modern", just that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-17-05 12:55 AM Totally disagree.........you CAN draw the lines around the rules of what's D&D......3.5 vs. the '74 rules??...gimme a break...... ....... morever....all of Nirvana is crap, beginner kiddie granola punk, "I really care but I look like I don't", a total bluff.....not appropriate for a D&D comparison....then again I'm a music snob but that's for a different forum........ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-17-05 11:25 AM In a way, you've already answered your own question. First, there are some definite facts. There are differences in rules between all of the editions. If there weren't any, by definition, then they'd all be the same edition. However, the subjective part is whether those differences make it an entirely different game or not. Some say that the differences are so great that it really doesn't make it D&D anymore. Some say that the differences are big enough so that, though it is still D&D, it gives the game a different flavor and feel and thus a different game. Finally, there are some that feel that the sameness in the rules greatly outweigh the differences, and thus pretty much the same games. So who is right? They all are because the matter is subjective. Some people put more creedence in certain rules that are the same, while others put more creedence in the rules that are different. It depends on what the viewer determines is of value, and that is different from person to person. Just like the Nirvana analogy: some people consider their music revolutionary while others feel that it is dreck. Actually, for the question "Is D&D really D&D?" has taken on a Jerry Springer-esque connotation. I guess the first time I read it, it was a interesting discussion. However, I've learned that now all it does is rile people up, so it is pretty much synominous with throwing a seat up onto a stage. My opinion is that if you're having fun playing whatever you're playing, it's all good. The rest is just details. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : caeruleus Date : 04-17-05 02:07 PM IMO Gygax, Holmes, Moldavay, Cook, etc....were all on the same page in terms of maintaining the true core integrity and quality of the game....... IIRC, Holmes actually wanted to change the Vancian magic system to one that uses spellpoints. He only kept the Vancian system at Gygax's insistence. D&D is now allowed to change because it's no longer the same people in control. Gary has stated at various times (and you can ask him in his discussion thread at the Dragonsfoot forums or ENWorld's forum for him) that D&D in the 80's had about 3.5 million players worldwide. I've heard from other sources that it currently boasts 1.7 million. Is 1.7 million the [i]total[i] number of people who play D&D, including OOP editions, or is it based on current sales, and hence indicating the number of people playing 3.x? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : Attila Date : 04-17-05 03:26 PM Is 1.7 million the [i]total[i] number of people who play D&D, including OOP editions, or is it based on current sales, and hence indicating the number of people playing 3.x? The factors that went into that strategy continue to be completely valid, and are vindicated by D&D's current level of success--the highest level of playership, sales, and public recognition in the game's history.? I'd be curious about that as well. There seem to be conflicting ideas on the subject. Not surprising given the difficulty of getting accurate data. edit: Charles Ryan is the brand manager for WoTC. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 04-17-05 06:42 PM Attila we all know that WOTC is a business first and foremost and will not "expose" the true numbers if they are poor or stagnant in growth. WOTC must wear smiley sunshine masks that all is well. You know like the captain aboard the Titanic, "Iceberg? We didn't hit an iceberg. There is no iceberg. We're fine." If it is true that WOTC's 3.x is not pulling them in so to speak and the numbers are bleeding like a hemophiliac every quarter expect Hasbro to sell off WOTC in the future. But on another note just think what would have happened to those rather good numbers in the eighties if D&D had not gotten this dangerous image of Satan worshipping metalheads. Things would have been vastly different today. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Attila Date : 04-17-05 10:30 PM Yeah they're never going to release their proprietary numbers. I think the point is that you really can't gauge the number of D&D players from either Gygax's statements or WoTC. No one really knows and what they do know won't tell. Hasbro is unlikely to sell off WoTC no matter what the pen & paper D&D game does. They really didn'y buy them for that--Hasbro wants the D&D name for use with XBox and other computer games. Magic TG is also more important to them. Even at its peak the D&D RPG wasn't profitable enough to be of interest to them. Our only real will be if they stopped producing pen & paper RPG entirely or continue to do so for many years. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 04-17-05 10:43 PM It's unfortunate but D&D may be heading to a level equal to that of pocket change. It will be kept around so Hasbro can afford to throw the annual Christmas party or it gets the senior suits a few weeks in the Bahamas every year for R&R. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-17-05 11:47 PM Roleplaying is a minor low profit industry. White WOlf is one of the only big companies that make most of their income from RPG products. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Eliza_Stormwhisper Date : 04-18-05 01:35 AM Hard for anyone to disagree with that. [Regarding Moldvay / Cook's edition being the "clearest, most accessible, and easiest"] *snip* I must be good at doing hard things, then. I disagree (!). In my opinion, 1st edition AD&D, as is, was the easiest to understand. Throw in Unearthed Arcana and I still think it's very easy and rather simple. It's just a matter of opinion, really. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : Attila Date : 04-18-05 09:14 PM No one ever said AD&D was hard. Let me repost the original quote for you. Moldvay / Cook's D&D certainly stands as propably the clearest, most accessible and easiest D&D made. I think you'd have a tough time arguing otherwise. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 04-18-05 11:43 PM Heh, I always figured that the Holmes version was easier than the Moldavy/Cook version myself. However, I would agree that probably the Moldavy/Cook probably is a lot more accessible than the Holmes. On a auction, I had someone throw in a few of the Moldavy/Cook in a bundle group. For the Holmes rules, I had to pay $20 alone for the rules from another auction. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Diomedes Date : 04-20-05 04:20 PM Gary has stated at various times (and you can ask him in his discussion thread at the Dragonsfoot forums or ENWorld's forum for him) that D&D in the 80's had about 3.5 million players worldwide. I've heard from other sources that it currently boasts 1.7 million. So "Still popular, but not nearly as." Of course this is endemic of all pen and paper RPGs thanks in part to CCGs, computer games and clickbase games taking a lot of hobby dollars. Just to interject some other numbers... According to the back cover of D&D for Dummies: "Market research indicates that 4 million American males, ages 8 to 45, play Dungeons & Dragons, while 7.6 million who haven’t played say they want to learn how." That doesn't mention which edition, but the verb used is in the present tense "play" not "played". Hence "More popular" is perhaps a better way to characterize the game's health by sheer numbers. Especially considering that this number does not take into account female players (and I have several in my current group). In fact, in my area in particular, 3.5 D&D is doing very well. On the other hand, it might be better to adjust these numbers by population levels. I have no idea how people there were around in the 80s, but I would guess fewer than now. Hence as a % of the population, that may be a drop. -Diomedes -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-21-05 01:11 AM Roleplaying have continued to expand as a hobby, ever since it was created. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:15 AM.