* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : TSR....The Story Started at 04-06-05 10:14 AM by WizzyBlackmore Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=408679 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-06-05 10:14 AM Thread Title : TSR....The Story ALways wondered about the politics and end of TSR....I gathered snippets here and there...anyone know what happened....why it was sold, bankruptcy, etc....it seemed unstoppable in the 80's.....I was sad to hear that it was sold, etc when I decided to get back into gaming after all these years..... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-06-05 10:48 AM ALways wondered about the politics and end of TSR....I gathered snippets here and there...anyone know what happened....why it was sold, bankruptcy, etc....it seemed unstoppable in the 80's.....I was sad to hear that it was sold, etc when I decided to get back into gaming after all these years..... Well, all per Gary of course... TSR's serious problems began when Brian Blume asked Gary to bring Kevin Blume (Brian's brother) onboard as corporate accountant. Shortly afterwards, a lot of Gary's "suggestions" and outright direction began to be ignored (Gary recounts walking down a hall and overhearing KB yelling "I don't care what Gary says!" at one of the designers). Realizing that D&D and TSR in general were a hot property, TSR Entertainment was established in California to try and market D&D as a "multimedia" property. This was an ideal opportunity for the Blumes to put Gary at arms length and run the company as they saw fit. It wasn't by too big a stretch a "sucker's job": the D&D Cartoon was the first fruit that D&D Ent., Inc. was able to bear. Gary then pitched a D&D movie to Edgar Gross, with John Boorman (Excalibur, Deliverance, The Emerald Forest) to direct and none other than Orson Welles to star! (http://delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org/Articles/pg3.htm) Unfortunately, about the time the D&D movie was beginning to gestate, Gary caught wind of many, many shenanagins going on in Lake Geneva. The Blume Brothers had purchased or leased about 100 or so automobiles - this for a company with about 300 employees at the time. They'd bought expensive computers (probably not a terrible idea, but...), as well as pallets of systems furniture. Worse still, they had lots and lots of relatives and hangers-on on the company payroll. They were all people who had no business working at TSR, much less drawing a paycheck. They'd done this in addition to buying a company that did needlepoint patterns. Finally, the "last straw" was that the Blumes were apparently "shopping the company on the street" - that is, looking to sell it out from under Gary. They had $16,000,000 in unsecured debt and a pre-tax profit of $4.00 for that year. The movie deal of course went bust, because Gary had to buckle down and get money flowing back in to the company. Unearthed Arcana was compiled, edited and released and cash started flowing back in. But the damage was already serious. Gary ousted the Blumes and looked for a management "white knight" to keep things on an even keel and thought he'd found one in Lorraine Williams. Unfortunately, LW had previously had dealings with the Blume Bros., and Gary unknowingly brought a snake in. She stated (publicly!) that she felt that she was above the class of people who played RPGs. That she was going to show TSR how a company "should be run". At that point, along with some other financial manipulations that were obviously being run behind the scenes by the Blumes, Gary threw up his hands and quit. Interestingly, and unfortunately, the day Gary resigned his office was locked and a great deal of his own personal gaming items were essentially confiscated by TSR. For example, he no longer owns a copy of the wargame Tractics thanks to this event. Sad. Anyway, to continue...Gary wound up working for GDW in the late 80's. He started work on a system called "Danjerous Journeys". TSR legal for some reason decided that the game was copyright infringement on the D&D name, and sued GDW. This is important because it was the fatal, self-inflicted wound TSR dealt itself: Gygax offered GDW "Danjerous Journeys" for a song (relatively speaking). They could buy the game and publish it themselves. Gygax's name on a TSR product again! Instead, they "settled out of court" and bought GDW to sink them. Their "settlement" was four times what Gary offered them DJ for. It was a crippling blow to TSR. This error, coupled with the declining popularity of D&D (because of the general badness of most 2e products - sorry, 2e fans, that's the way it is) and TSR's attempt to correct the error with "shovelware" (books and campaign material hastily printed and sold to try and recoup profits - rather what Gary did with UA, but less successful because the products poorly written and for an already unpopular game system), led to a slow bleed out of cash that was never corrected. Some things did work for TSR - "Dragon Dice" was a pretty popular game, yet TSR couldn't market it properly and it sank without too much impact on the game world. To sum up: don't let anyone give you a sugar coated history of TSR. The Blumes almost destroyed the company and drove Gary out. Lorraine Williams did destroy the company and drive Gary out. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Kheldren Date : 04-06-05 11:19 AM Other twists (I don't know many of the details, but some were obvious). TSR's printing machinery went belly up (or this is what they said) - I think I got 3 Dragon Magazines on subscription in a year - it might have been 4 but I doubt it. This would have had a horrible effect on cash-flow whilst they were trying to save the company. TSR also tried to go mass market - in bookshops. This meant "Sale or Return" and it is said that a lots of stuff got returned - a nother huge hole in the cashflow. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-06-05 02:04 PM Sad, tragic end to all the hard work and success over the years......I'm surprised a D&D nut didn't try to assassinate the B bros....... Also, if I played 2nd Ed and read this I'd stop and go to 1st ed. knowing it was thrown together.....looks as if the 2nd Ed. players have no idea ho great the 1st ed. game is..... :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-06-05 03:57 PM Sad, tragic end to all the hard work and success over the years......I'm surprised a D&D nut didn't try to assassinate the B bros....... Also, if I played 2nd Ed and read this I'd stop and go to 1st ed. knowing it was thrown together.....looks as if the 2nd Ed. players have no idea ho great the 1st ed. game is..... :P Careful, you'll bring Halaster Blackcloak stomping back in to defend his game of choice. Anyway, a lot of 2e editing decisions were made specifically to remove a "gygaxian" feel from the game, from the ditching of the Greyhawk setting as the de-facto "standard" for the game all the way to the lousy production values of the books. I don't blame any single writer or editor who worked on the core 2e books (well...the 2e DMG was dreck) because they had their orders from on high. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-06-05 05:23 PM One again, I agree with Dungeon Delver on all accounts. I still find it hard to understand the artificial separation between 1ed and 2ed, since they are basically the exact same game. Looking at both editions, I can tell the "Gygaxian" removal was kept to a minimum. Just enough so Gary wouldn't get his 2.5% in royalties, and while he's not fond of Zeb Cook in any way, you can tell by the books of both editions that any changes made to the game itself were minimal. The most noticeable changes are the modular components 1ed players love to complain about, such as NWP's, but those are clearly labeled as optional components. I completely understand the emotivity of most 1ed players on disliking 2ed, since it was done with the intention to remove Gary from his baby, but as games, the rules are 95% identical, and the fact most 1ed players began appreciating 2ed as still being AD&D after the release of 3E is a testament to that. I will agree with one thing, tho. The 2ed DMG is a monumental disgrace, even without comparing it to 1ed's. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-06-05 07:36 PM I liked 2nd edition and I grew up playing it. I still like it, but 1st edition has more flavour, and some of the classes are more interesting (ranger, illusionist and bard in particular). Im not afraid to mix and match what I want though. Overall, though. I'd say the three main reasons for TSR dying was: Faulty market strategies, particularly in terms of campaign worlds and supplements AD&D2nd edition Dropping classic D&D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 04-06-05 10:41 PM I've found myself enthralled by Behind the RPG threads such as this one. I have a couple of questions for those in the know. 1) Why does Gary have a certain disdain for Zeb Cook? I never knew this. I thought Cook's design of the '81 basic D&D sets was pretty good and I enjoyed his Realms contributions as well. 2) Wasn't the death of TSR about the buy back deal of '97? As I've heard tell the chain Books A Million was sold on the idea that AD&D was making a huge comeback (a lie designed by a desperate TSR) and it purchased everything and anything with AD&D on the cover. Books A Million lost their shorts Christmas of '97 because of this and TSR in return lost theirs because they had to buy back all the crap BAM didn't sell! If someone could clear these two questions up for me I'd appreciate it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-06-05 10:44 PM The Cook of the Basic / Expert set is Dave Cook. Different guy, AFAIK. I think the resentment of Zeb is more based on what happened to AD&D, than the guy himself -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : I'm Batman Date : 04-07-05 12:24 AM I will agree with one thing, tho. The 2ed DMG is a monumental disgrace, even without comparing it to 1ed's. Absolutely. I still take mine to bed with me when I'm having trouble sleeping. It's a pleasure to read. Edit: The 1E DMG, that is. ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Kalanth Date : 04-07-05 01:54 AM just though you all would like to read this interview I found after I was intreged by the conversation. Gary Gygax Interview (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p1.html) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Kheldren Date : 04-07-05 03:12 AM Dropping classic D&D Good point, so far as I can remember Basic D&D (and Expert...Rules Companion) was the best selling rules set they had. What it didn't have was the repeat sales of supplements (for one thing you didn't need them). I assumed at the time this was why they tried to fold Mystara into 2nd Ed - to transfer the bigger player base into the main product line, unfotunately this was never likely to work. :( -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Warhead Date : 04-07-05 06:58 AM Careful, you'll bring Halaster Blackcloak stomping back in to defend his game of choice. Anyway, a lot of 2e editing decisions were made specifically to remove a "gygaxian" feel from the game, from the ditching of the Greyhawk setting as the de-facto "standard" for the game all the way to the lousy production values of the books. I don't blame any single writer or editor who worked on the core 2e books (well...the 2e DMG was dreck) because they had their orders from on high. If "Gygaxian" means haphazard and inconsistent, then I can only commend the 2e people for straightening a lot of it out. While it's not perfect, it's a lot more coherent than 1e (which I grew up on). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : havard Date : 04-07-05 10:09 AM Overall, though. I'd say the three main reasons for TSR dying was: Faulty market strategies, particularly in terms of campaign worlds and supplements The strategies was one problem. Another was that the quality of the products during the 1990s dropped dramtically. AD&D2nd edition AD&D2 started out alright, but as it grew things got out of hand and there was such a mess of different optional rules and extra additions in the end. I've heard that was the case of AD&D1E aswell, though I'm not sure. Every time they come out with a new edition, they split the fan base. This is sad, but it seems inevitable as each edition seems to be following the same path. 3E seems to be slowly heading that way too, and the 3.5 split was a disaster. Dropping classic D&D Classic D&D was always my favorite. What they did to Classic and Mystara was a disaster, and I think TSR lost alot of fans through that process, even though the Classic fanbase was a minority compared to the AD&D2 one... In the end though, I am not too sad by the fact that TSR is now owned by WotC which is owned by WotC. Big business has noticed the RPG industry, which is a good thing, and the stuff coming out today is IMHO waay better than the stuff TSR published in the 1990s. The TSR of the 1980s produced a lot of great things though, but fortunately most of it is available on pdf.... :) Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : caeruleus Date : 04-07-05 10:51 AM The Cook of the Basic / Expert set is Dave Cook. Different guy, AFAIK. I think the resentment of Zeb is more based on what happened to AD&D, than the guy himself AFAIK, it's the same guy. I've seen many references to a David "Zeb" Cook. So Zeb must be his nick-name or something. I've heard that Cook also did most of the writing for the 1e Oriental Adventures, even though Gygax's name was on the cover. Just FWIW. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-07-05 11:16 AM If "Gygaxian" means haphazard and inconsistent, then I can only commend the 2e people for straightening a lot of it out. While it's not perfect, it's a lot more coherent than 1e (which I grew up on). If that's all you took away from 1e then you have poor reading and comprehension skills. That's all I have to say on that matter. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 04-07-05 01:10 PM Ok, let's keep the topic of the posts the same as the subject of the thread, not other guests. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 04-07-05 01:27 PM Yeah, Weasel, David Cook and Zeb Cook are the same guy. I really liked his stuff too. Basic D&D was losing a little steam in the 90's as well. The Wrath of the Immortals set was less than inspiring for me. I thought it would be equivalent to Mentzer's Immortal's rules but alas it twas not. I can sort of understand the dropping of BD&D, a little, but when 2e products were invading the bookstore at a drastic pace and the quality of said products were lacking...maybe it would have been better to keep BD&D around. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-07-05 11:36 PM ahh, my bad. Thanks for clearing that up though. Always been confused regarding the number of "cooks" ;) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-08-05 08:47 PM One again, I agree with Dungeon Delver on all accounts. I still find it hard to understand the artificial separation between 1ed and 2ed, since they are basically the exact same game. Looking at both editions, I can tell the "Gygaxian" removal was kept to a minimum. Just enough so Gary wouldn't get his 2.5% in royalties, and while he's not fond of Zeb Cook in any way, you can tell by the books of both editions that any changes made to the game itself were minimal. The most noticeable changes are the modular components 1ed players love to complain about, such as NWP's, but those are clearly labeled as optional components. I completely understand the emotivity of most 1ed players on disliking 2ed, since it was done with the intention to remove Gary from his baby, but as games, the rules are 95% identical, and the fact most 1ed players began appreciating 2ed as still being AD&D after the release of 3E is a testament to that. I will agree with one thing, tho. The 2ed DMG is a monumental disgrace, even without comparing it to 1ed's. As a 1e die hard I have to differ, I knew nothing about the goings on of TSR at the time 2e came out and it was as unwelcome a development to me then as 3e is to me now. 2e remains a world apart from 1e to IMHO and 3e a world apart again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : Hiryu Date : 04-08-05 11:58 PM Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, saying 2ed is as separate from 1ed as 3E, is a gross exageration. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : Warhead Date : 04-09-05 07:37 AM If that's all you took away from 1e then you have poor reading and comprehension skills. That's all I have to say on that matter. Sadly, that's incorrect on both counts. However, I'd be delighted if you'd enlighten us further... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 04-09-05 07:38 AM Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, saying 2ed is as separate from 1ed as 3E, is a gross exageration. You are correct, Hiryu. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Stonebeard Date : 04-09-05 03:22 PM Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, saying 2ed is as separate from 1ed as 3E, is a gross exageration. For clarification what i said or meant to say is that 2e was a world apart from 1e and 3e was two worlds apart again from 1e. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 04-09-05 03:55 PM Sadly, that's incorrect on both counts. However, I'd be delighted if you'd enlighten us further... Actually, I'd prefer if he didn't. Let's keep the posts to the subject matter of the thread, not each other. Thanks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : Elendur Date : 04-09-05 06:12 PM For clarification what i said or meant to say is that 2e was a world apart from 1e and 3e was two worlds apart again from 1e.Honestly I think all versions of D&D are pretty close together. Within the same hemisphere if you will. Same races, same classes, same monsters, same spells, same magic items. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-10-05 12:31 AM Same races, same classes, same monsters, same spells, same magic items. Yeah, the fact that combat rules are completely different makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. :looloo: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-10-05 12:44 AM Hahahahhahahha!! The "it's all good" approach won't work here..... Was talking to a hardcore 1st ed. buddy a while back.....said he hated 2nd ed. artwork was cheesy, non-cohesive and sloppy... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Attila Date : 04-10-05 12:52 AM No need for the 'loo loo' smilie. However, I agree that 1ed/2ed are totally different than 3ed. The same classes, races, monsters, etc. is what makes them both DnD. 2ed is basically 1ed with the inclusion of many of the optional rules that had been developed for 1ed over the years. They were still almost identical. While any 1ed/2ed player can step into a 3ed game and understand almost all the important rules, it's still necessary to switch to new characters and convert published modules. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : Attila Date : 04-10-05 12:54 AM Was talking to a hardcore 1st ed. buddy a while back.....said he hated 2nd ed. artwork was cheesy, non-cohesive and sloppy... I'll take the 1e and Basic/Expert artwork over any other edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-10-05 01:11 AM Actually, I'm with Elendur with this one. What was noted what that they are in the same hemisphere as the other editions, and to that respect, they are very close to one another. Most share many of the spells (using the same Vancian magic system), the attribute system, hit points, same classes, same base races, same weapons, same monsters, and same magic items. Yes, they have differences like combat, THACO, and the like, but much of the game is pretty much the same. Even though the combat has several new nuances, in order to cause damage on a creature, you're still trying to overcome an AC. There's definitely new aluminum siding on the house, but the frame is pretty much the same - thoughout all of the change in the editions. Now if they come out with a completely new attribute system, monsters, base class races, monsters, and magic system, I'll possibly see it differently. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-10-05 09:11 AM Actually, I'm with Elendur with this one. What was noted what that they are in the same hemisphere as the other editions, and to that respect, they are very close to one another. Most share many of the spells (using the same Vancian magic system), the attribute system, hit points, same classes, same base races, same weapons, same monsters, and same magic items. Yes, they have differences like combat, THACO, and the like, but much of the game is pretty much the same. Even though the combat has several new nuances, in order to cause damage on a creature, you're still trying to overcome an AC. There's definitely new aluminum siding on the house, but the frame is pretty much the same - thoughout all of the change in the editions. Now if they come out with a completely new attribute system, monsters, base class races, monsters, and magic system, I'll possibly see it differently. I'm sorry, I've got to disagree with you here. The major shift in the game isn't purely one of mechanics, it's the whole mindset to which the game is approached. The unified XP chart is a perfect example: levelling up is now "quick and easy" and geared toward maximum reward for minimum effort. The shift of focus from the character-as-archetype to a skill based system? Total change of 180' for the game. The role of the DM has been totally de-emphasized - look at the d20 DMG. How many actual, honest-to-god need-it-to-play concrete RULES are in there? The DM has been reduced to...well, little more than a book-keeper for NPCs, frankly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : cerebus Date : 04-10-05 10:41 AM I'll take the 1e and Basic/Expert artwork over any other edition. Amen to that. :ayyyy!: Erol Otus Rules!! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : WizzyBlackmore Date : 04-10-05 01:42 PM When did THACO come into the picture??? It just appeared around '86? In ist ed. mods and suppliments.....of course I only know the basic/expert sets of D&D....... Yes Erol Otis Rules!! Where is he now?? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-10-05 03:50 PM When did THACO come into the picture??? It just appeared around '86? In ist ed. mods and suppliments.....of course I only know the basic/expert sets of D&D....... Yes Erol Otis Rules!! Where is he now?? Erol is alive and well and living in California; he occasionally does artwork for Hackmaster parody modules and Goodman Games "Dungeon Crawl Classics" as well as album cover art. The first "mention" of THAC0 comes in the 1e DMG in the reference chart given for monsters. It is listed for the DM's convenience, and not as a basis for supplanting the chart system. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 36] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-10-05 05:20 PM No need for the 'loo loo' smilie. However, I agree that 1ed/2ed are totally different than 3ed. The same classes, races, monsters, etc. is what makes them both DnD. 2ed is basically 1ed with the inclusion of many of the optional rules that had been developed for 1ed over the years. They were still almost identical. Actually, I was saying it's "looloo" to call 1e and 2e basically identical games. Aside from the other myriad differences, combat rules are completely different. The main reason people think 1e and 2e are "almost identical" is that most people weren't playing 1e combat by the book (and in many cases, not even close to by the book). The fact that conversion between the two system is relatively easy is a result of keeping character creation and monster stats basically the same (with notable exceptions like dragons, giants, etc.). However, "easy to convert" doesn't necessarily translate to "almost identical". I didn't think any comment about the differences between 3e and OOP AD&D was necessary (or appropriate, since 3e is off topic for the OOP forum), as anyone who has actually read both sets of rules can tell that 3e is a completely different game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 37] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-10-05 05:22 PM Was talking to a hardcore 1st ed. buddy a while back.....said he hated 2nd ed. artwork was cheesy, non-cohesive and sloppy... It's always nice when the artwork fits the game system. Isn't it? :D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 38] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-10-05 06:26 PM I'm sorry, I've got to disagree with you here. Hey, it's cool to disagree. It would be boring if we all had the same opinion on everything. :) The major shift in the game isn't purely one of mechanics, it's the whole mindset to which the game is approached. The unified XP chart is a perfect example: levelling up is now "quick and easy" and geared toward maximum reward for minimum effort. The shift of focus from the character-as-archetype to a skill based system? Total change of 180' for the game. The role of the DM has been totally de-emphasized - look at the d20 DMG. How many actual, honest-to-god need-it-to-play concrete RULES are in there? The DM has been reduced to...well, little more than a book-keeper for NPCs, frankly. And, to me, I just see different options available. Basically, the DM is still the one that spins the tales and is the ones that determine the challenges. They're the one that notes what checks need to be made. If a part of the plot requires that a player blows a check, then make it nearly impossible (or impossible) to make the DC. (ie the lock was made of exceptional craftmanship, etc.) And even in 1st edition, I vaguely remember listen die checks and rogues always had their skills. There's always been a search check. For example, even if I spend an hour explaining to my 1st edition DM how I was inspecting the room and roleplaying out the situation in perfect detail, he'd always say, "Well, that nice - now roll a d6." As for DM de-emphasis, the last time I checked, I didn't know of that many groups that can play D&D without a DM, and that goes for any edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 39] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-10-05 06:30 PM I didn't think any comment about the differences between 3e and OOP AD&D was necessary (or appropriate, since 3e is off topic for the OOP forum), as anyone who has actually read both sets of rules can tell that 3e is a completely different game. Well, all I can say is that I've read the rules for all of the editions and really are impressed by how many of the things are the same between all of the editions. Really, to me it is like saying that people of different race and gender are completely different, when in fact 99% of their DNA is the same. Much of the structure of the mechanics are the same for all editions. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 40] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-10-05 08:39 PM Much of the structure of the mechanics are the same for all editions. YMMV. How does armor affect Dex bonus to AC? How many weapons is a 1st level fighter proficient with? What is the benefit of wearing a helmet? How do you decide who goes first in a round? How do you determine surprise? What are the requirements for disrupting a spellcaster? What's the difference between a buckler, small shield and large shield? How does it affect my AC if someone is standing behind me? How does it affect my AC if someone is standing on my right side? If I get multiple attacks, when do they occur in the round? etc. etc. etc. If I wanted to take the time, I'm sure I could come up with at least 100 things different between 1e and 2e alone. If we got into 3e, I'm sure that number would increase by at least 10-fold. I really don't see where the point of contention is here. The games are different, that's an unquestionable fact. If you want to say that "the differences don't matter to me", that's fine and completely legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that the differences are there. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 41] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-10-05 11:49 PM How does armor affect Dex bonus to AC? Differences in how dex bonus is handled, but still there is dex bonus and AC system to determine whether a character is hit or not. How many weapons is a 1st level fighter proficient with? Difference in what the listing is, but there is a proficiency listing for each edition. What is the benefit of wearing a helmet? Honestly, I can't remember how every system handled helmets, so I'll let this one slide. How do you decide who goes first in a round? By initiative. Different dice used to roll for initiative, but it still is the initiative system all the same. How do you determine surprise? All the editions had a surprise round, and usually in all of the editions moving silently or hiding (in shadows) helped. Slightly different mechanics, same base structure. What are the requirements for disrupting a spellcaster? Different mechanics, but in all the systems, you can disrupt one. What's the difference between a buckler, small shield and large shield? Differing ways to handle it, but it went to improve the armor class. In essense, I'm not saying that they are the exact same game from edition to edition. However, they share the same base structure that makes them very similiar. The games are different, that's an unquestionable fact. If you want to say that "the differences don't matter to me", that's fine and completely legitimate, but it doesn't change the fact that the differences are there. I never said there were not differences. All I'm saying is that they are small when you compare them to the similiarities for all of the systems and that all the systems share the same base structure. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 42] Author : Attila Date : 04-11-05 12:37 AM I'm sorry, I've got to disagree with you here. The major shift in the game isn't purely one of mechanics, it's the whole mindset to which the game is approached. The unified XP chart is a perfect example: levelling up is now "quick and easy" and geared toward maximum reward for minimum effort. The shift of focus from the character-as-archetype to a skill based system? Total change of 180' for the game. The role of the DM has been totally de-emphasized - look at the d20 DMG. How many actual, honest-to-god need-it-to-play concrete RULES are in there? The DM has been reduced to...well, little more than a book-keeper for NPCs, frankly. The shift in mechanics is clear (and I like it) but the mindset is not. My group applies the 1ed approach to 3ed rules and it works out quite well. If you're talking kids that have never been exposed to earlier editions then I can see where they might be misled. The kiddos just need more exposure to the rules lite approach. As someone else pointed out, it's not a problem with the rules but a problem with the DM and his personal mindset. I don't care for the default slow advancement though as I never played the game frequently enough to see any appreciable advancement. The idea behind the default* faster advancement is that the average player didn't play as often as was generally assumed and so it offers the chance to see PC progression w/o dedicating your life to D&D. I really like the separate XP charts of AD&D--they make more sense. People in different fields gain experience at different rates. The problem with the boschdevil-Ourph debate is that they are looking at the game on two different levels. Ourph is saying the trees are different and boschdevil is saying the forest is the same. You really can't get anywhere with that type of debate. The real issue is what level to compare the differences. I think that it's more appropriate to look at the forest given the nature of the topic. * The DM can always change to suit. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 43] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-11-05 01:15 AM I never said there were not differences. All I'm saying is that they are small when you compare them to the similiarities for all of the systems and that all the systems share the same base structure. Well, I never said anything other than that there are a lot of differences, so I'm not sure why you're arguing the point. The fact is that there are numerous differences. Your opinion is that the differences are insignificant. Ourph is saying the trees are different and boschdevil is saying the forest is the same. Actually, I'm saying that if the trees are different the forests are also, inherently different. Boschdevil seems to be saying that the differences don't matter, which doesn't really contradict what I said in any way. It's just a good way to distract people from the facts. Apparently, the fact that different editions of D&D actually differ in terms of the way the rules work makes some people uncomfortable when it's brought up in conversation. I really don't get it, but it seems to be an omni-present phenomenon. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 44] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-11-05 08:01 AM The fact is that there are numerous differences. Your opinion is that the differences are insignificant. I agree with the above. The only thing that I would note is that there are a lot of similarities, in fact the same rules, between the various editions as well. That's why, even when one factors in the differences, overall the systems are very similar. Actually, I'm saying that if the trees are different the forests are also, inherently different. Boschdevil seems to be saying that the differences don't matter, which doesn't really contradict what I said in any way. It's just a good way to distract people from the facts. Apparently, the fact that different editions of D&D actually differ in terms of the way the rules work makes some people uncomfortable when it's brought up in conversation. I really don't get it, but it seems to be an omni-present phenomenon. I ok with the differences. If the games had the exact same rules, then they wouldn't be delineated with editions, just different printings. However, the editions are pretty similar when you factor in all of the rules, just not solely the differences. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 45] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-11-05 11:36 AM I've said before and I'll say again, 3e and previous editions are similar in that they are both Fantasy Role Playing Games. They are similar in that you can play them in the same manner. They have the same name. However, that doesn't make 3e any mechanically closer to some of the older OOP editions than Runequest, Palladium Fantasy, Castles & Crusades, Hackmaster, or any of a number of essentially D&D derived RPG's. If 3e is the "same game" as 1e, fine. Then RQ, PFRPG, C&C, and HM are all the same game, too. And by the way, Dave Cook = Zeb. He wrote the '81 Expert book, I1, Star Frontiers, Oriental Adventures, and much of 2e. He's had one of the hobby's more interesting game design careers. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 46] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-11-05 02:42 PM I think its a big step to realize that two games can be different, without being worse or better. Just different. I like both classic D&D (basic/expert) and AD&D. I also like Runequest, Drakar och Demoner, and GURPS fantasy. They are all rather different, but I like them each, for separate things -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 47] Author : havard Date : 04-12-05 07:53 AM If 3e is the "same game" as 1e, fine. Then RQ, PFRPG, C&C, and HM are all the same game, too. Can't agree with that statement. First of all there is a significant difference between skill-based systems and level based systems. 3E, although having a skill system is still firmly based in the level based camp. Furthermore, in spite of many differences between the editions, the core mechanics are the same. As mentioned in another thread, the change from THAC0 to BAB may feel very different, but actually isn't. The feel of the game has changed quite a bit, but I also thought the exact same thing when I first played AD&D2, having only played Classic (Mentzer) before. The transtition from AD&D1 to AD&D2 also left a huge group of people complaining about how the game had changed, although I didnt understand how they felt untill TSR shut down the classic line. And by the way, Dave Cook = Zeb. He wrote the '81 Expert book, I1, Star Frontiers, Oriental Adventures, and much of 2e. He's had one of the hobby's more interesting game design careers. Thanks for the update on this guy. Do you know what happened to him? I think its a big step to realize that two games can be different, without being worse or better. Just different. Good point. In my gaming career, I have made it a point to try as many different systems as possible. I find it enriches all my games. I like both classic D&D (basic/expert) and AD&D. I also like Runequest, Drakar och Demoner, and GURPS fantasy. They are all rather different, but I like them each, for separate things Drakar och Demoner? I thought you were from the US! I only tried an early edition (very RQ-like), but I heard later editions have been improved dramatically though. OTOH, most of the Swedish RPGs seem to be to heavy on the hard realism thing for me. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 48] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-12-05 12:16 PM I apologize in advance for the long philosophical discourse. This is sort of the culmination of my thoughts on 3 or 4 threads here and at other boards... 3E, although having a skill system is still firmly based in the level based camp. I really disagree with you here. Having a skill system and a level system aren't mutually exclusive. Levels are just a way determining which skill you have. Some games with skill systems have you increase in skill levels incrementally. Others have you increase your skills all at once when you reach a certain level. The big distinction is between skill systems and class systems. And while 3e purports to remain a class-based system, they're really only templates for selecting skills and other abilities. It's far more like the BRP CoC method of having a profession that determines which skills you choose from than a AD&D1 style class that determines which class abilities you have. In AD&D1, choosing your class is essentially the end point of character creation, while in 3e it's the beginning. Character creation in AD&D1 is about emulating archetypes, and in 3e it is about character customization. You say the core mechanics haven't changed. I'd ask which core mechanics you are referring to? I have a hard time thinking of any core mechanics that haven't changed at one point or another in D&D's history. The extent to which skills - a concept that didn't exist in the first 12 years of the history of the game and remained superfluous options for the next 12 years - are embedded into the current system really cuts against your argument. Like I said before, it may be true that someone can play the same kinds of games with both 1e and 3e, or any other version of (A)D&D. I don't dispute the possibility. What I'm saying is, if the fact that each version can be played in the same way means that each version of (A)D&D is the same game under your definition, then logically other games which are mechanically similar, which can be played in the same manner would also qualify as "Dungeons & Dragons". Thus Palladium Fantasy, whose first edition borrowed heavily from 1e; Runequest, whose 1st edition borrowed heavily from OD&D; Hackmaster, which is almost entirely derived from 1st and 2nd edition AD&D; and Castles & Crusades, which is also almost entirely derived from current and past versions of D&D, are all also "D&D". If they are not "D&D" by someone's definition, then that person must, logically, be using some other definition of "D&D". (Not to mention all the non-fantasy rpg's that borrowed heavily from one version of D&D or another... Metamorphis Alpha, Gamma World, Empire of the Petal Throne, Super Heroes 2044, the various and sundry d20 games, etc.) If a person says that those games are not D&D because they were not named "D&D", that's perfectly fine. However, that means that person is not using a 'style of play' definition for D&D. They are using a 'legalistic' definition. That is, D&D is what the owner of the D&D Intellectual Property tells you D&D is. The legalistic definition is certainly not a very intellectually satisfying answer. It doesn't take a very great stretch of the imagination to think that the holder of the D&D IP could conceivably slap the D&D name on something completely odd, call it "4th edition", and have the D&D fanbase rise up as one and say, "That's not D&D!!!" We all know that the designers of 3e stuck with the various "sacred cows" for precisely this reason, and the eventual designers of the next edition, when/if it ever comes, will do the same. Personally, I believe that when a person refers to "D&D" they are referring to a set of rules. That set of rules is their own idealized version of how the game should be played. It's quite subjective, much the same way a European, Australian, and American will have differing conceptions of how one plays "football". Both examples are created by the fact that so many different games (or versions of the same game, if you prefer) by that name have been made. Just like D&D, you can't generalize your definition of football without including rugby, but you can't specify it without excluding one of the games actually referred to as "football" (or using the specious, it's "football" because we call it "football" definition). Here's an example of what I mean. I meet a 3e fan, but don't know he's a 3e fan. We strike up a conversation regarding D&D. I invite him to a game and then pull out the old White Box version of D&D. What will 99% of 3e fans' reaction be? Whether they still want to play or not, 99% of 3e fans' reaction will be something to the effect of, "That's not what I thought you meant by D&D." The conception of the game they were carrying around in their brain is different from my conception. What I find really strange is many persons' denial of the differences in rules, and the further denial that the differences have any affect on the way the game is played. Take character creation, for example. If in version A, characters take 10 minutes to make, and in version B, they take an hour to make, in which version will players be more attached to their characters? In which version will players be more upset if their player passes away? Hence, in which version will the DM be more likely to pull punches and fudge? We could go over the same kind of things with tactical combat versus abstract combat, experience awards and training costs, relative power level of starting characters, skills systems or the lack thereof, the difficulty or ease in making dungeons, the extent to which the referree needs to make judgment calls... All differ from rule set to rule set, and all differences have significant effects on the way the game is played. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 49] Author : Elendur Date : 04-12-05 02:57 PM I just have to continue to disagree. For me, D&D is not a set of rules. D&D is a kind of story that I participate in. Whether or not I'd sit down with someone and play a game with them has much more to do with what I thought of them as a person than what rules set they favored. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 50] Author : caeruleus Date : 04-12-05 03:19 PM Humans (h. sapiens) and h. erectus are two different species. H. erectus is our ancestor (AFAIK... I haven't been brushing up on the latest research in human evolution). Grass is on a completely different lineage. Could we say something similar about 1e and 3e? Different games, but 3e evolved from 1e (and in saying so, I'm expecting at least one person will deny it for what may actually look like good reasons). Perhaps something like Runequest could (by analogy) be like the grass above? Please note that there is no value judgement here. People often think that "more evolved" means "better than", but nothing could be further from the truth. (And if you're wondering why I used "h." instead of the full word, it's because the full word was censored. Sheesh!) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 51] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-12-05 03:26 PM Drakar och Demoner? I thought you were from the US! I only tried an early edition (very RQ-like), but I heard later editions have been improved dramatically though. OTOH, most of the Swedish RPGs seem to be to heavy on the hard realism thing for me. Havard Im Danish :) I just moved over here. I played the danish version which must have been the third edition or so. Split in the core and Expert rules. Fantastic game, butr yes, very RQ like. The newer stuff is interesting but they added some things that seemed to spoil the unique spirit, such as level based advancement, and "fantasypunk"ish artwork. If you are into swedish RPG's, by all means check out Kult. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 52] Author : Attila Date : 04-13-05 03:07 AM The big distinction is between skill systems and class systems. And while 3e purports to remain a class-based system, they're really only templates for selecting skills and other abilities. It's far more like the BRP CoC method of having a profession that determines which skills you choose from than a AD&D1 style class that determines which class abilities you have. In AD&D1, choosing your class is essentially the end point of character creation, while in 3e it's the beginning. Character creation in AD&D1 is about emulating archetypes, and in 3e it is about character customization. The real difference between 1e and 3e is how they enforce the class-based system and emulation of archetypes. 1e used railroading while 3e uses an admittedly more complex system of rules to keep you on course. Railroading was acceptable to us because we grew up with D&D, it was the premiere RPG and we simply accepted it as the way things were supposed to be. That wouldn't fly today with the proliferation of RPG systems. While 3e allows for a little more flexibility from the strict class system of 1e, deviating from it comes at a steep price and usually results in below average characters. 3e certainly allows for a high degree of character customization. This is done through the addition of new rules (feats) rather than the elimination of old. You say the core mechanics haven't changed. I'd ask which core mechanics you are referring to? I have a hard time thinking of any core mechanics that haven't changed at one point or another in D&D's history. The extent to which skills - a concept that didn't exist in the first 12 years of the history of the game and remained superfluous options for the next 12 years - are embedded into the current system really cuts against your argument. This really cuts into your argument that it's the core mechanics that make D&D what it is. Take character creation, for example. If in version A, characters take 10 minutes to make, and in version B, they take an hour to make, in which version will players be more attached to their characters? In which version will players be more upset if their player passes away? Hence, in which version will the DM be more likely to pull punches and fudge? As a player I don't become emotionally involved with my characters. As DM, it doesn't concern me how long a PC took to create. If he dies, he dies. The player will sit out until he finishes rolling up a new character. We could go over the same kind of things with tactical combat versus abstract combat, experience awards and training costs, relative power level of starting characters, skills systems or the lack thereof, the difficulty or ease in making dungeons, the extent to which the referree needs to make judgment calls... All differ from rule set to rule set, and all differences have significant effects on the way the game is played. Those are certainly differences that exist between the different versions of D&D. However, none of them are significant enough to make one version D&D and another not. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 53] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-13-05 03:14 AM The real difference between 1e and 3e is how they enforce the class-based system and emulation of archetypes. 1e used railroading while 3e uses an admittedly more complex system of rules to keep you on course. Railroading was acceptable to us because we grew up with D&D, it was the premiere RPG and we simply accepted it as the way things were supposed to be. That wouldn't fly today with the proliferation of RPG systems. I'd say its more a question of AD&D using classes as a strong archetype, whereas 3.x uses the class as a collection of skills and powers. Either can work, but I definately prefer the former, when playing D&D. One of the main issues I have with 3.x is the complete lack of restriction on anything. Sometimes less is, indeed, more -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 54] Author : havard Date : 04-13-05 09:52 AM I'd say its more a question of AD&D using classes as a strong archetype, whereas 3.x uses the class as a collection of skills and powers. This change did not originate from 3.X, it started early on in the 2e era. Skills&Powers was the ultimate "death" to restrictive classes. Havard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 55] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-13-05 02:26 PM Im not sure about early, but evenwith Skills & Powers, there is still a difference. S&P let you customize your class a lot (in many cases to the point of stupidity), but you were still bound by your class. 3.x is written to encourage people who "get" the system and master it, according to Monte Cook, and follows the same philosophy as Magic,where every negative can be negated and every flaw can be covered by the right choices, hence the free multiclassing, feats and similar. Even the darkest hours of AD&D 2nd edition are hard to compare to 3.x, as the goals of the writers were different. The guys writing the kits and S&P sought to increase the options available, 3.x simply threw away the boundaries and made everything possible to everyone. Your favourite may vary from mine of course. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 56] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-13-05 03:39 PM Im not sure about early, but evenwith Skills & Powers, there is still a difference. S&P let you customize your class a lot (in many cases to the point of stupidity), but you were still bound by your class. 3.x is written to encourage people who "get" the system and master it, according to Monte Cook, and follows the same philosophy as Magic,where every negative can be negated and every flaw can be covered by the right choices, hence the free multiclassing, feats and similar. Even the darkest hours of AD&D 2nd edition are hard to compare to 3.x, as the goals of the writers were different. The guys writing the kits and S&P sought to increase the options available, 3.x simply threw away the boundaries and made everything possible to everyone. Your favourite may vary from mine of course. Yeah, the last time I looked there weren't any 'undead dire half-halfling dracolich paladin/theives' in any previous edition... :gah: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 57] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-13-05 05:18 PM Those are certainly differences that exist between the different versions of D&D. However, none of them are significant enough to make one version D&D and another not. Can everyone participating in this discussion PLEASE PLEASE get it through their heads that there is a distinction between saying "3e is different than previous editions of D&D" and saying "3e is not D&D". Rogueattorney never once claimed any version of D&D "wasn't really D&D". The fact that this strawman was used as a rebuttal to his entirely reasonable comments (ones which are interesting and worthy of discussion) is extremely frustrating, because it simply drags the discussion back into the playground-mentality "is.....is not" mode which, hopefully, all of us would like to avoid. :banghead: -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 58] Author : boschdevil Date : 04-13-05 07:39 PM Can everyone participating in this discussion PLEASE PLEASE get it through their heads that there is a distinction between saying "3e is different than previous editions of D&D" and saying "3e is not D&D". Rogueattorney never once claimed any version of D&D "wasn't really D&D". The fact that this strawman was used as a rebuttal to his entirely reasonable comments (ones which are interesting and worthy of discussion) is extremely frustrating, because it simply drags the discussion back into the playground-mentality "is.....is not" mode which, hopefully, all of us would like to avoid. :banghead: I understand what you are saying. However, all I'm saying is though I agree that "3e is different than previous editons of D&D", overall the similarities with the editions outweigh the differences. Thus, when everything is taken into consideration, my belief is that they are pretty much the same game. By definition, if there were no difference between editions, there would only be one edition. And that, in a nutshell, is admittedly my subjective opinion. Just like those who feel the difference make the editions feel like completely different editions are entitled to their opinion. That's what makes message board great: you get to hear a variety of opinions and for every situation YMMV. I apologize to anyone got the impression that I was insinuating that those who don't agree with my opinion should be hauled off and shot, because that was not the intent. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 59] Author : Attila Date : 04-13-05 08:39 PM Ouph, I think boschdevil took care of your concern. No one ever said there weren't differences between the editions. That's why they are different editions. Yeah, the last time I looked there weren't any 'undead dire half-halfling dracolich paladin/theives' in any previous edition... :gah: LOL!!! I'm not sure this is possible even in 3e. I don't bother with the splat books though. Wouldn't surprise me though if someone doesn't have such a monstrosity walking around. I much prefer the 1e system for multi/dual classing. The ability to abuse the system started with 2e Skills & Powers. I remember palyers with elves that didn't speak elvish, didn't have low light vision, etc. because they maxed out their combat abilities. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 60] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-14-05 12:31 AM Thus, when everything is taken into consideration, my belief is that they are pretty much the same game. I think at least part of the problem here is that many of us are operating under completely different assumptions about the definition of "the same game". Blackjack and Five Card Draw are both technically Poker. Anyone referring to the game "Poker" could easily mean either, although common parlance among some groups usually leads to "Poker" meaning one specific game or a subset of specific games (in actuality, I've rarely heard anyone actually refer to Blackjack as Poker, but technically it is). To put the situation into RPG terms, I would say that "Fantasy RPG" is equivalent to the term "Poker" as a broad range of games which are similar in many aspects and have a related origin but may vary greatly in rules, strategies for "winning", etc. Amber Diceless possesses few similarities to AD&D, but both definitely fall under the heading "Fantasy RPG", just as both Blackjack and Five Card Stud fall under the heading of Poker. The entire subset of D&D could be considered as a specific subset of related Poker games (for purposes of this analogy, those related to and in many cases derived from, the game of Five Card Stud). In this instance, OD&D and B/X D&D might be equivalent to Five Card Stud and Seven Card Stud, essentially very similar, but with some differences that change the actual play and strategies for success. 1e might be equivalent to Five Card Draw, where the game remains quite similar, but a new layer of complexity is added in that again changes the optimal strategies and makes the players think in different terms. To illustrate further, 3e might be equivalent to Texas Hold Em. Now compare Texas Hold Em with Five Card Stud. The same basic rules apply (three of a kind beats two pair, Aces beat 10's, etc.) but the actual play, strategies for success, nuances of betting and probabilities associated with acquiring a certain hand are all quite different. In all likelihood, someone familiar only with Five Card Stud who tried to play Texas Hold Em using the same strategies and assumptions they would normally use would meet with disappointment and frustration. Essentially they would have to learn to play a "different game" even though the games share a similar origin and have many rules in common. So (IMO) the important question is not "Do the rule sets have, numerically speaking, more commonalities than discrepancies?", nor is it "Do the rule sets have similar core rules that act as the foundation of both games?". The important question to ask when considering how similar two rule sets are, is "Can a player port his strategies from one game to the other and have those strategies lead to a similar level of success?". In the specific case of the combat rules between (for example) 1e and 3e, the answer to that question is a definite NO! Players must concentrate on, and take advantage of, completely different criteria in these two systems in order to meet with success. Facing is an excellent example of this. Facing is extremely important in 1e, as it determines who you can strike, which opponents your Dex bonus to AC applies against, which opponents your shield bonuses apply against, etc.; whereas in 3e the issue of facing is completely irrelevant. The combatant is assumed to be aware in 360 degrees and therefore "faceless". Instead, flanking and flat-footedness (two concepts which have no equivalent in 1e) become important in terms of a combatants spatial and awareness orientation relative to opponents. I think the confusion/rancor in much of these types of discussions comes from the assumption that someone who says "3e is a different game than 1e" is saying the equivalent of "Texas Hold Em isn't Poker". That's not what I'm saying (it's also not what rogueattorney was saying, if I understand him correctly) and I don't think it's what most of the people pointing out the differences in this thread are saying. My point isn't that Texas Hold Em (3e) isn't "Poker", it's that Texas Hold Em (3e) isn't Five Card Draw (1e). I will readily admit that they are both still "Poker" (D&D) and that they have (both numerically and in their basic rules assumptions) many similarities. My contention is that they can exist simulataneously under the headings of "the same game" (equivalent to "both Poker") and "different games" (equivalent to "different games of Poker") but that "different games" is the more crucial issue, because it addresses what actually happens at the table when people are making decisions about their play, rather than some theoretical comparison of how numerically or fundamentally similar the games are. Where you and others may be saying "all editions are basically the same game" and meaning they appear, upon examination of the rules, to have both numerically more similarities than differences and to use the same fundamental systems, I am hearing in my head as I read "a player's assumptions about which 'moves' within his range of options are optimal in terms of achieving success can be applied equally to all editions of the game" (a statement that appears to be, to me, obviously false on its face). Conversely, I can see, now that I've considered it thoroughly, that my assertion that the games are "fundamentally different" is equally vague and open to misinterpretation, due to the fact that it uses subjective terms to describe a very concrete concept. Essentially, I was saying "they're different" and some people interpreted that as "the games have more differences than similarities and operate based on fundamentally different core concepts", which wasn't my point at all. Hopefully the above (please forgive the length) provides a much better summation of my actual assertion and its full context, rather than the "is...is not" we've been posting back and forth and clears up, at least a bit, why some of us seem to have been talking past each other rather than to each other. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 61] Author : Attila Date : 04-14-05 01:03 AM Thank you for that well written post. That is what we need here. Now that we are on the same page, I agree with you. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 62] Author : Elendur Date : 04-14-05 11:34 AM Can everyone participating in this discussion PLEASE PLEASE get it through their heads that there is a distinction between saying "3e is different than previous editions of D&D" and saying "3e is not D&D". Rogueattorney never once claimed any version of D&D "wasn't really D&D". The fact that this strawman was used as a rebuttal to his entirely reasonable comments rougeattorney is saying that 3e D&D is no more D&D than Gamma World is. Stonebeard said that 1e and 3e are 'worlds apart'. Two worlds apart, actually. DungeonDelver said on another thread: Originally Posted by WizzyBlackmore Is the WOC version of D&D really D&D? *snip* No, not really. ... 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. The only thing that bothers me is that if someone came on this forum and asked "Hey I used to play D&D back in the day. I'd like to play again, but the only group around here plays this 3e stuff. Is that really D&D?" people on this forum would say "No, it's not. It's nothing like 1e D&D". So the guy might not play. I just honestly don't believe most gamers with familiarity with previous versions are going to have any problem playing in a 3e game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 63] Author : Warhead Date : 04-14-05 12:23 PM Yeah, the last time I looked there weren't any 'undead dire half-halfling dracolich paladin/theives' in any previous edition... :gah: PMSL!!! That, in a nutshell, is what slays me when I read 3E stuff. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 64] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-14-05 12:42 PM rougeattorney is saying that 3e D&D is no more D&D than Gamma World is. No, I'm saying, in terms of rules mechanics, 1st and 2nd edition Gamma World rules are closer to OD&D than 3e is. That's simply a fact. Jim Ward, who created Metamorphosis Alpha (the precursor of GW) based it off of OD&D. Gamma World used basically the same rules as MA, it just moved the setting from outer space to post-nuclear war earth. By the same token, the d20 version of Gamma World is mechanically more similar to 3e than 1e. Again, that's just a fact. I don't understand what the argument is about. My whole point was not that this version or that version of D&D was the real D&D. My point was that the definition of D&D as a play style didn't work because you can use the same play style with similarly constructed games that aren't D&D. I have yet to hear someone who disagrees with that point explain to me why Runequest, for example, isn't D&D. Do not warriors and wizards and other adventurers gather together and fight monsters in Runequest? The people who are using the 'style of play' to define D&D are essentially saying that the rules don't matter, that no matter the version of D&D, they are having the same gaming experience. That is something I profoundly disagree with. The rules do matter. They effect play, such that someone playing one version of the game will have a different experience than someone playing another version of the game. If that is not the case, then someone is not following the rules of the game. Now, it is entirely possible that someone who has the "same experience" playing two sets of rules is simply altering the rules of one or both sets to meet their expectations. I think this is often the case with 3e vis a vis earlier versions of D&D. I think many people heavily altered the rules to older D&D games to support their style of play and that 3e more fully supports the way that they want to play. OOP D&D and 3e D&D are indeed basically the same thing. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying that if they are basically the same thing, then most other Fantasy Role-Playing Games are basically the same thing, too. If someone is denying that, they need to do a better job of telling me what makes D&D, D&D. Is it simply the fact that the book has "D&D" on the front cover? That's fine. But it doesn't necessarily mean that a fan of one version of D&D will be a fan of the next. Elendur's hypothetical 1e fan might be better served looking at Hackmaster or Castles & Crusades, or simply being made aware of the differences between editions so that he can judge for himself whether to continue with 1e or to look into the new version. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 65] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-14-05 02:11 PM Its all D&D. Its just not the same D&D -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 66] Author : Elendur Date : 04-14-05 05:40 PM I'm glad we're in agreement. I guess I felt like people were saying some versions of D&D weren't worthy of the name, and I don't think that's very a productive conversation on this board. I'd rather hear about what people like and are playing, rather than what they don't like. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 67] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-17-05 10:40 PM Well, all per Gary of course... TSR's serious problems began when Brian Blume asked Gary to bring Kevin Blume (Brian's brother) onboard as corporate accountant. Shortly afterwards, a lot of Gary's "suggestions" and outright direction began to be ignored (Gary recounts walking down a hall and overhearing KB yelling "I don't care what Gary says!" at one of the designers). Realizing that D&D and TSR in general were a hot property, TSR Entertainment was established in California to try and market D&D as a "multimedia" property. This was an ideal opportunity for the Blumes to put Gary at arms length and run the company as they saw fit. It wasn't by too big a stretch a "sucker's job": the D&D Cartoon was the first fruit that D&D Ent., Inc. was able to bear. Gary then pitched a D&D movie to Edgar Gross, with John Boorman (Excalibur, Deliverance, The Emerald Forest) to direct and none other than Orson Welles to star! (http://delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org/Articles/pg3.htm) Unfortunately, about the time the D&D movie was beginning to gestate, Gary caught wind of many, many shenanagins going on in Lake Geneva. The Blume Brothers had purchased or leased about 100 or so automobiles - this for a company with about 300 employees at the time. They'd bought expensive computers (probably not a terrible idea, but...), as well as pallets of systems furniture. Worse still, they had lots and lots of relatives and hangers-on on the company payroll. They were all people who had no business working at TSR, much less drawing a paycheck. They'd done this in addition to buying a company that did needlepoint patterns. Finally, the "last straw" was that the Blumes were apparently "shopping the company on the street" - that is, looking to sell it out from under Gary. They had $16,000,000 in unsecured debt and a pre-tax profit of $4.00 for that year. The movie deal of course went bust, because Gary had to buckle down and get money flowing back in to the company. Unearthed Arcana was compiled, edited and released and cash started flowing back in. But the damage was already serious. Gary ousted the Blumes and looked for a management "white knight" to keep things on an even keel and thought he'd found one in Lorraine Williams. Unfortunately, LW had previously had dealings with the Blume Bros., and Gary unknowingly brought a snake in. She stated (publicly!) that she felt that she was above the class of people who played RPGs. That she was going to show TSR how a company "should be run". At that point, along with some other financial manipulations that were obviously being run behind the scenes by the Blumes, Gary threw up his hands and quit. Interestingly, and unfortunately, the day Gary resigned his office was locked and a great deal of his own personal gaming items were essentially confiscated by TSR. For example, he no longer owns a copy of the wargame Tractics thanks to this event. Sad. Anyway, to continue...Gary wound up working for GDW in the late 80's. He started work on a system called "Danjerous Journeys". TSR legal for some reason decided that the game was copyright infringement on the D&D name, and sued GDW. This is important because it was the fatal, self-inflicted wound TSR dealt itself: Gygax offered GDW "Danjerous Journeys" for a song (relatively speaking). They could buy the game and publish it themselves. Gygax's name on a TSR product again! Instead, they "settled out of court" and bought GDW to sink them. Their "settlement" was four times what Gary offered them DJ for. It was a crippling blow to TSR. This error, coupled with the declining popularity of D&D (because of the general badness of most 2e products - sorry, 2e fans, that's the way it is) and TSR's attempt to correct the error with "shovelware" (books and campaign material hastily printed and sold to try and recoup profits - rather what Gary did with UA, but less successful because the products poorly written and for an already unpopular game system), led to a slow bleed out of cash that was never corrected. Some things did work for TSR - "Dragon Dice" was a pretty popular game, yet TSR couldn't market it properly and it sank without too much impact on the game world. To sum up: don't let anyone give you a sugar coated history of TSR. The Blumes almost destroyed the company and drove Gary out. Lorraine Williams did destroy the company and drive Gary out. Great post!!! :teach: I think this information is important for all D&D fans, particularly the newer or younger players. Let's face it, Gary is a creative and lejendary genius, who invented one of the greatest games ever, and those stuff shirt corporate bean counter types are nothing losers. And WoTC, they are money making corporations much like Enron, Arthur Andersen, or Fox news. :devil: Oh, and nothing personal WoTC, but we must all tell the truth. Best regards, Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 68] Author : Luminescent Date : 04-18-05 03:11 AM On the risen subject of the various editions. I'm a fan and Dm/Player of Od&d, Ad&d and Ad&d 2e. I have attempted the conversion to 3.0/3.5, but feel as though I am partaking in a video game put to paper. A quick simple example would be various feats, such as..allowing your fighter/warrior-type to spin a'bout...weapons in hand, like a miniature tornado. Additions to the game such as this just place a very MARIO BROS./Action adventure video game taste in my mouth. I'm sorry, but super jumps, spinning whirlwind attacks and limitless stats(from non-caster driven sources)all wreak of Zelda and comparable action adventure video games. It leaves me searching for my characters color-coded power meters. Thats all simply my opinion of course. If 3ed works for you...so be it; enjoy yourself. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 69] Author : Zavyyn Date : 04-18-05 04:26 AM Let's face it, Gary is a creative and lejendary genius, who invented one of the greatest games ever, and those stuff shirt corporate bean counter types are nothing losers. Gary was a creative genius insofar as he created a new type game unlike all others that had come before it. Beyond that... Eh. Then again, I've read some of his fiction. *shudder* -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 70] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-18-05 10:42 AM Gary was a creative genius insofar as he created a new type game unlike all others that had come before it. Beyond that... Eh. Then again, I've read some of his fiction. *shudder* Well, "beyond that", fiction or anything else doesn't matter, it's what you said "creative genius insofar as he created a new type game unlike all others that had come before it." That fact is just huge. Think of all the D&D versions, all the copy cat games, all the other RPGs and number of people who play them. It's amazing really. Anway, thanks for your thoughts. :) Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 71] Author : rogueattorney Date : 04-18-05 12:14 PM Then again, I've read some of his fiction. *shudder* :D I've also seen a few of Dylan's movies. I still think he's a great songwriter. Seriously though, I'd put Gary Gygax's entire gaming output - from the 1974 set to the forthcoming Castle Zagyg - up against any single other gaming author. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 72] Author : caeruleus Date : 04-18-05 01:04 PM Gary is a creative and lejendary genius, who invented one of the greatest games ever I agree, but let's please not forget Dave Arneson, also a creative genius. It's their combined effort that gave us D&D. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 73] Author : weasel fierce Date : 04-18-05 01:56 PM Gygax is up there as one of the all-time best game designers. THe others being Frank Mentzer (TSR), Ethan Skemp (White Wolf), Greg Stolze (god amongst men.. wrote Alternative armies and the rules for "godlike") and well. Not sure who the last one would be. Noone deserving enough yet -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 74] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-18-05 04:41 PM Gygax is up there as one of the all-time best game designers. THe others being Frank Mentzer (TSR), Ethan Skemp (White Wolf), Greg Stolze (god amongst men.. wrote Alternative armies and the rules for "godlike") and well. Not sure who the last one would be. Noone deserving enough yet Could I suggest Gregg Stafford for his creation of the world of Glorantha for Runequest as well as his work on Call of Cthulhu, Thieves World, Elfquest and (who could forget) the Ghostbusters RPG ;) ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 75] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-18-05 05:25 PM Sorry, multipost. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 76] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-18-05 05:37 PM Sorry, multipost. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 77] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-19-05 07:21 PM I agree, but let's please not forget Dave Arneson, also a creative genius. It's their combined effort that gave us D&D. Yep, absolutely. The only reason I mentioned Gary specifically, was that the article detailed his particular issues with corporate types and his situation at TSR. And, yes Arneson, Mentzer, Wells, Moldvay and many others who I can't think of or don't know about, helped with the development of D&D. I guess my point was more about the problems of a creative person dealing with the sometimes evil :devil: world of sales, marketing, accounting, etc. that can and do get in the way of a great product. :D Anyway, I guess the good thing is, that we get to reap the benefit of Gary and many other folks like him that have been responsible for the fantastic array of roleplaying games. :cheer: Regards, Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 78] Author : havard Date : 04-20-05 09:39 AM I guess my point was more about the problems of a creative person dealing with the sometimes evil :devil: world of sales, marketing, accounting, etc. that can and do get in the way of a great product. :D Slightly OT: Ofcourse, some creative geniouses need the world of sales, marketing, accounting etc to steer them on the right track. I mean, look at what happened to Mr. Lucas... :weep: Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 79] Author : Diomedes Date : 04-20-05 01:01 PM Great post!!! :teach: I think this information is important for all D&D fans, particularly the newer or younger players. Let's face it, Gary is a creative and lejendary genius, who invented one of the greatest games ever, and those stuff shirt corporate bean counter types are nothing losers. And WoTC, they are money making corporations much like Enron, Arthur Andersen, or Fox news. :devil: Oh, and nothing personal WoTC, but we must all tell the truth. Best regards, Rhuvein. Let me start by agreeing that I appreciated this thread. I've heard snips of the tale here and there but it was nice to see a lot of it collected in one spot. Thanks for the work that went into that post and some of the others on this thread. Second, I really must disagree with the above statement. People who have read some of my other posts may find this curious as I have strongly asserted the position that for-profit business corporations in general (and hence WotC/Hasbro in particular) exist /only/ to make money. I am not trying to change that position now, however I have also always mentioned that while making money is the /end/ of such a company, it may choose between differing /means/. There are actually recordings of Enron conversations where people plan on ripping off the elderly who rely on a fixed income and hence may loose their housing and belongings when Enron inflated the cost. Further you're talking about companies that /destroyed/ the life savings of individuals that worked hard and hoped to one day retire. Hasbro on the other had has set up charitable organizations (http://www.hasbro.org/) and has a long statement of corporate ethics. I feel comparing the two is /very/ unfair to WotC. Third, I was in a similar conversation recently on another board (yes, edition discussions seem to be almost as popular as Kirk vs Picard on the internet ;) ). Anyhow, for what it's worth, I did start on second edition and worked my way both forwards and backwards (playing through 1st and 3.X) and even a bunch of other random systems (including a few that I made up in high school). [I'm just stating my history now, so it doesn't need to get dragged up later ;) ] I'm not trying to state that any edition is better than another edition, however some of the differences that have been mentioned on this thread are not 100% bad in my mind. While they've been stated as negatives, I really enjoy the fact that 3.X brings the player a lot more into the mechanics of the game than some other editions. In particular, this often allows for players to form reasonable expectations of what the outcome of doing something complicated are (wow, my grammar is terrible today). I like this as I often felt that arguments arose in other editions about what a character /couldn't/ do today even though they /could/ do it yesterday. Ah well, just my perspective on the matter. Thanks for the summaries on the thread. -Diomedes -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 80] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-22-05 06:23 PM Hasbro on the other had has set up charitable organizations (http://www.hasbro.org/) and has a long statement of corporate ethics. I feel comparing the two is /very/ unfair to WotC. Thanks, your point is well taken. I suppose my comments were more for the corporation/management at the time that Gary was at TSR. BTW, I agree with your comments on 3.X. I like much of it from a players standpoint, but did not like DM'ing it. Anyway, I think there is room for all versions of D&D. Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 81] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-22-05 06:26 PM Slightly OT: Ofcourse, some creative geniouses need the world of sales, marketing, accounting etc to steer them on the right track. I mean, look at what happened to Mr. Lucas... :weep: Håvard Actually, I think fan support and word of mouth drove sales, marketing & accounting after the surprise success of the movie. And the studio boss, Alan Ladd Jr, who was the only exec that would give Lucas the go to make the movie. :) Regards, Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 82] Author : wordserpent Date : 04-22-05 06:40 PM I think that WotC has great fan support of thier games. Look at how much material they offer for free. For D&D alone you can download hundreds of adventures and lots of source material. Of course the newer stuff is geared more towards getting the 'players' to spend money as opposed to creating books strictly for the DMs. But there is certainly a great deal of free stuff for the DMs. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 83] Author : Attila Date : 04-22-05 11:13 PM pc.gamespy.com has a nice series of articles online covering the history of D&D and pretty much says the same thing as DD. Although this is going to be unpopular here, one point I would like to bring up is that we've only heard Gary's side of the story. While I'm sure most of it is accurate, there are certain details that don't quite make sense... The Blume family were the ones that provided the money for the printing of the OD&D books in 1974 (see History of D&D @pc.gamespy.com). There were originally three equal partners in the D&D venture: Gary, Brian Blume, and another guy that was helping Gary with the game design. When the other guy died (1977-1978?) Gary couldn't afford to buy his shares so Brian Blume bought them and gained control of the company (67%). It seems that's when the troubles between Gygax and Blume started. Now since the Blume's owned 2/3 of the company, the last thing they would want to do is to hurt the value of the company. They had the most to lose from failure and the most to gain from success. That makes me skeptical of Gary's stories about wasteful spending and mismanagement. [In my experience the owners of privately held companies are the cheapest most frugal people you will ever meet.] There are plenty of more mundane reasons to explain why Gary and the Blumes did not get along. Loss of control over the game he created is an obvious one. Anyway, the Blumes would only have allowed Gary to walk out as a last resort since Gary was the creative genius behind their cash cow. Now I have little doubt that Lorraine Williams was incompetant, after all she ran TSR into the ground. I'm not saying that Gary wasn't a creative genius, he was. I'm not saying that the Blumes were wonderful people. We don't know enough for a judgement either way. I am saying that we've only gotten half of the story. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 84] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 04-22-05 11:48 PM It seems that's when the troubles between Gygax and Blume started. Now since the Blume's owned 2/3 of the company, the last thing they would want to do is to hurt the value of the company. They had the most to lose from failure and the most to gain from success. That makes me skeptical of Gary's stories about wasteful spending and mismanagement. [In my experience the owners of privately held companies are the cheapest most frugal people you will ever meet.] Well, obviously you can believe what you want, but the fleet of company cars, the multiple fax machines in the Blumes executive cars, the number of employees retained by TSR (way in excess of what was necessary), the enormous salaries of certain "executives" and other expenditures all should be matters of record. It might take some digging to find it, but the information is out there (most likely in the hands of the Blumes, Lorraine Williams or some other ex-TSR executive). While I understand that most people who run businesses are very responsible with their money and do their best to keep the business on solid ground, we're not talking about your typical mom & pop business here. At the time Gary was ousted, TSR had grown from a basement operation (literally) to a multi-million dollar company with lots of media attention and millions of customers. Sometimes success like that goes to people's heads and makes them do stupid things. In the end, the only people who could possibly contradict Gary's rendition of events are the Blumes, Lorraine Williams and other TSR employees who were there at the time. The fact that nobody has, so far, come forward to contradict Gary's version of what happened speaks volumes to me. I'll believe Gary's side of the story until I'm presented with another, reasonable explanation of the events. YMMV. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 85] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-24-05 06:15 PM "What Ourph said." The various court case documents and public tax records of TSR, Inc. are available if you've got the time and inclination to dig around and find them. The Blumes committed outright perfidy. Maybe they started out as Gary's friends. That wasn't what it was like at the end. Oh and that "guy who died" was Don Kaye, a good friend of Gary's. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 86] Author : snarfalupagus Date : 04-25-05 05:18 PM Slightly OT, but: Of course the newer stuff is geared more towards getting the 'players' to spend money as opposed to creating books strictly for the DMs. But there is certainly a great deal of free stuff for the DMs. Hear Hear! I WILL NOT say whether I like 3x or not, I have never played it. I probably never will either. But Kudos to WotC for all the supa kewl freebies on their corporate money grubbing website. Oh, I do support the new stuff. I like the Minis game. Fun for me and the stepson. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 87] Author : Rhuvein Date : 04-25-05 10:36 PM "What Ourph said." The various court case documents and public tax records of TSR, Inc. are available if you've got the time and inclination to dig around and find them. The Blumes committed outright perfidy. Maybe they started out as Gary's friends. That wasn't what it was like at the end. Oh and that "guy who died" was Don Kaye, a good friend of Gary's. And what YOU said, TDD. Your early great post made this a fantastic thread! :D Thanks for the info. Regards, Rhuvein. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 88] Author : D+1 Date : 04-28-05 02:03 AM Other twists (I don't know many of the details, but some were obvious). TSR's printing machinery went belly up (or this is what they said) - I think I got 3 Dragon Magazines on subscription in a year - it might have been 4 but I doubt it. This would have had a horrible effect on cash-flow whilst they were trying to save the company. I just wanted to address a few points here. TSR did not own its own printery. What happened regarding the printers is that at THE END they could not PAY the printers and so the printers refused to print any more until they got money. The first stories being spread by TSR pretty much just called it "a problem at the printers" and left it at that, undoubtedly hoping to salvage the situation and resume printing. But that very rapidly could be seen as a bald-faced lie as they did not give the work to some other printer. Rumors began to leak out gradually what was really going on. TSR also tried to go mass market - in bookshops. This meant "Sale or Return" and it is said that a lots of stuff got returned - another huge hole in the cashflow.As I understand it this was the straw that broke the camels back. There were a great many problems with the way TSR had been run and was doing business. In addition to what was noted about the Blumes and Williams conduct at the boardroom level, the workings at the production and sales level were just as botched. They were creating a lot of new campaign settings and each one sold less than the last one - because they were essentially cannibalizing their own sales. They would revise/re-package and re-issue old settings too and they would sell less and less. They had no market research data. They simply guessed at what would sell (if they bothered to even guess) and threw it out there. Considering they were the sole source of D&D product at the time that was a REALLY stupid way to run things. They had warehouses FULL of old, utterly valueless, unsold RPG stuff. With bad management from the top down of the type and sheer scale that was being perpetrated at TSR it was probably just a matter of time. The book buy-back thing turned out to be a REALLY big straw, but I suspect all it did was send the company out with a bang instead of a whimper. Had Gygax still been there, there would have been someone to at least be a voice advocating running the company with fiscal responsiblity as well as for having ANY consideration for the end product and the customers (whereas Williams openly despised both their customers and the product they sold to them.) Better that Gygax wasn't there to watch it all come apart up close and in person. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 89] Author : Attila Date : 04-28-05 08:32 PM The various court case documents and public tax records of TSR, Inc. are available if you've got the time and inclination to dig around and find them. Court records may be available if there were any. I didn't get the impression from the articles that there were any court proceedings related to this disbute. If there are, I would love to read them. Tax records are most definately not available as they are confidential. Only officers of TSR (or its successors) and the IRS have access to those records. Information regarding this matter is most likely limited to Gary, the Blumes and employees of TSR at the time. It's not that I don't believe Gary, it's just that people tend to embellish and misremember things. That's why you always need multiple accounts to get the real story before we crucify anyone. Three sides to every story. The Blumes committed outright perfidy. I totally agree. While I won't go as far as saying the Blumes committed outright fraud without further documentation, there is no question that the Blumes stabbed Gary in the back and then spat upon him. Their business skills left a lot to be desired as well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 90] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 04-29-05 12:47 AM While I won't go as far as saying the Blumes committed outright fraud without further documentation, there is no question that the Blumes stabbed Gary in the back and then spat upon him. Their business skills left a lot to be desired as well. Until the day comes that either Brian or Kevin Blume (or Lorraine Williams) can or will respond to any questions regarding their dealings with TSR, "Gary's side" is all we have. If Mr. Gygax was saying libelous things (and I'm not implying that you are suggesting that he is), surely one of the aggrieved parties would stand up and say, "That isn't what happened." But here's the thing: Steve Marsh, Frank Mentzer and Robert J. Kuntz (all of whom post at dragonsfoot.org with some regularity, although Rob "Maj. Kookie" has been very quiet for a few months) can all corraborate what Gary says to a greater or lesser degree. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 91] Author : protonik Date : 05-05-05 11:39 AM Sad, tragic end to all the hard work and success over the years......I'm surprised a D&D nut didn't try to assassinate the B bros....... Also, if I played 2nd Ed and read this I'd stop and go to 1st ed. knowing it was thrown together.....looks as if the 2nd Ed. players have no idea ho great the 1st ed. game is..... :P Well, 2e itself was hardly thrown together hastily and was in the works for 2 years before final release. Gygax began the planning of 2e and there was a questionaire in Dragon on what worked and what didn't work etc. It was after about two years that the 2e material began to show signs of hasty production, especially after the first 4 PHBR series books and some of the questionable FR products. Oddly, as far as 2e went it seemed that the time and quality went to lesser products like PLanescape, Birthright and Dark Sun whereas the companies big product Forgotten Realms was over exposed and had a serious quality control issue. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 92] Author : protonik Date : 05-05-05 11:50 AM Overall, though. I'd say the three main reasons for TSR dying was: Faulty market strategies, particularly in terms of campaign worlds and supplements AD&D2nd edition Dropping classic D&D It has been proven that the marketing strategies with various worlds hurt TSR in the long run, it wasn't the fractious campaigns themselves but the amount of money they invested in them and the use of boxed sets that hurt them. They lost money on them. AD&D2e may not have sold as many book in 11 years as 1e sold in the first few years but it was still the best selling RPG on the market until the end of TSR. Buuuut, as far as dropping classic D&D, that goes under the faulty marketing. Classic D&D and AD&D were competitors and covered the same ground! When you have two 99% similar products and they are cannibalizing one another what do you do? You certainly do NOT continue both product lines. You can one of them. AD&D was the more profitable line. Bye Bye Basic D&D. Dropping BD&D was PROBABLY the best idea that TSR marketing had and not because it was a bad game. AD&D simply outsold it. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 93] Author : protonik Date : 05-05-05 11:56 AM Yeah, the fact that combat rules are completely different makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. :looloo: No they aren't. 2e merely eliminated the need to use the Hit Matrices by using a different terminology in Thac0. Other than that they are extremely similar outside of some minor changes that don't affect the feel of combat. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 94] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-05-05 12:31 PM Well, 2e itself was hardly thrown together hastily and was in the works for 2 years before final release. Gygax began the planning of 2e and there was a questionaire in Dragon on what worked and what didn't work etc. It was after about two years that the 2e material began to show signs of hasty production, especially after the first 4 PHBR series books and some of the questionable FR products. Oddly, as far as 2e went it seemed that the time and quality went to lesser products like PLanescape, Birthright and Dark Sun whereas the companies big product Forgotten Realms was over exposed and had a serious quality control issue. Jason What Gary wanted in 2nd edition and what was published were two entirely different things. None of his work made it into Zeb Cook's 2e. None of it. And it shows. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 95] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-05-05 01:56 PM Buuuut, as far as dropping classic D&D, that goes under the faulty marketing. Classic D&D and AD&D were competitors and covered the same ground! When you have two 99% similar products and they are cannibalizing one another what do you do? You certainly do NOT continue both product lines. You can one of them. AD&D was the more profitable line. Bye Bye Basic D&D. Dropping BD&D was PROBABLY the best idea that TSR marketing had and not because it was a bad game. AD&D simply outsold it. Jason Problem being that the ones that didnt buy AD&D before, were unlikely to buy it after the company dropped the game they liked. So they were not converting many fans, as much as just loosing them. This compared to the success of things like White Wolf, made it a step closer to the end. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 96] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-05-05 02:00 PM No they aren't. 2e merely eliminated the need to use the Hit Matrices by using a different terminology in Thac0. Other than that they are extremely similar outside of some minor changes that don't affect the feel of combat. Jason 1e surprise, initiative, shield, facing and a multitude of other combat rules are all significantly different than 2e. THAC0 is the least of the differences. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 97] Author : weasel fierce Date : 05-05-05 02:07 PM Thats because they are different editions, friend. The base system is still the same. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 98] Author : Ourph the Mingol Date : 05-05-05 02:52 PM Thats because they are different editions, friend. The base system is still the same. Let's not get into another pedantic argument over what "completely different" means. IIRC we covered that subject pretty thoroughly just a few weeks ago. :thinks: Suffice it to say that the 1e and 2e combat systems have differences and those differences seem quite significant to me. YMMV. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 99] Author : rogueattorney Date : 05-05-05 03:52 PM A couple things here... 2e was actually in development for about four years. 2 years of development by Gygax and Mentzer, which was scrapped when they left (were booted from) the company. And then 2 years of Winters and Cook starting from scratch. You can say that at the time TSR discontinued D&D in 1993, it was a smart move because the two games were way too similar. I'll not argue with that. I will however say that the moves that resulted in the two games becoming overly similar, especially the re-design of AD&D and the creation of the RC showed a distinct lack of understanding of the purposes of both systems. The end result was two fairly complex generic customizable fantasy rpg's filling the exact same market niche. When TSR stopped making Dungeons & Dragons, it was as if MacDonald's had stopped making quarterpounders. While it may not have directly lead to the end of the company, it was at the very least a symbolic harbinger of things to come. TSR had been around for 20 years to that point, and was sold to WotC only 4 years later. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 100] Author : protonik Date : 05-06-05 01:51 PM What Gary wanted in 2nd edition and what was published were two entirely different things. None of his work made it into Zeb Cook's 2e. None of it. And it shows. Who said anything about that? I didn't say ANYTHING except it was started by Gygax. Making contention where there is no contention methinks. Aside from that, if what I heard about Gygax's ideas for 2e were implemented the changes to 3e from 2e would pale in comparison. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 101] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 05-06-05 04:19 PM Who said anything about that? I didn't say ANYTHING except it was started by Gygax. Making contention where there is no contention methinks. Aside from that, if what I heard about Gygax's ideas for 2e were implemented the changes to 3e from 2e would pale in comparison. Jason Firstly, "what you heard" was wrong. Dead wrong. Secondly, there's not a point of contention, but you made no distinction between what Gary was writing as a "second edition" and the actual release beyond "after two years [it] began to show signs of hasty production" as though they'd carried through with Gygax's work but only after a two year period did it become of lower quality. It is important to keep these things clear so that nobody will fall under the misapprehension that Gary Gygax was responsible for what we now know is "2e". They were two different things. And yet at the same time, Gary's work would've been truer to 1e. Go figure. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 102] Author : protonik Date : 05-06-05 10:06 PM Firstly, "what you heard" was wrong. Dead wrong. Secondly, there's not a point of contention, but you made no distinction between what Gary was writing as a "second edition" and the actual release beyond "after two years [it] began to show signs of hasty production" as though they'd carried through with Gygax's work but only after a two year period did it become of lower quality. It is important to keep these things clear so that nobody will fall under the misapprehension that Gary Gygax was responsible for what we now know is "2e". They were two different things. And yet at the same time, Gary's work would've been truer to 1e. Go figure. Someone needs to chill the heck out and apologize here. I don't think I need to make a distinction CONSIDERING THAT GARY IS NOWHERE CREDITED IN SECOND EDITION. I never IMPLIED Gygax had much to do with 2e except that it started under HIS watch and was NEVER hastily released, which it wasn't. You have created an arguement when there was no arguement. They have medication for people like you... prozac. Jason -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 103] Author : WizO_Sith Date : 05-07-05 02:21 PM Ok, Aside from the flame-war, I think the problem here is that, while 2nd Edition AD&D is (obviously) an Out-Of-Print product this particular topic isn't appropriate for these forums (indeed, it's not an acceptable topic for discussion *anywhere* on the WotC Online Community). The Out of Print Forums are for exchanging fan-created game material and discussing the games/settings themselves - not for behind-the-sceens meta-discussions about the internal politics of now-defunct companies. There are plenty of other forums where this topic is perfectly legitimate. This topic will be locked. Do not restart it. *Click* -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:16 AM.