* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Turning points Started at 11-17-05 12:13 PM by caeruleus Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=538123 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-17-05 12:13 PM Thread Title : Turning points What do you think are some of the most important turning points for the D&D/AD&D game? What new ideas had some of the biggest influences on the direction it took? Obviously, the introduction of AD&D itself is a major turning point. Another is the introduction of nonweapon proficiencies, first (I believe) in Oriental Adventures, then elaborated in Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide. (And, of course, even further elaborated in 2e.) What else? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : Darth_Azalin Date : 11-17-05 04:20 PM going to a 2nd edition doing the ill faded skills and powers options high level and council of wyrms settings options character kits spell points psionics (at least 2.0 then going way out there with dark sun) going to 3rd edition Making a d20 format Doing OGL and SRD going to a 3.5 revision edition stuff like that... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-17-05 06:07 PM 0. 1974 - OD&D is "mass" produced for the first time (a couple thousand copies). 1. 1975 - The Greyhawk Supplement drastically changed the original rules, and essentially turned it into the game we now all know. Thieves were added, ability scores gained added prominance, races grew distinct from class, many of the 'iconic' D&D monsters were added. 2. 1978 - The AD&D Players Handbook. It presented AD&D as a distinctly new game, rather than a supplement to OD&D. Also the first adventure modules were published. Before, TSR had been reluctant to publish adventures, thinking they would not sell. 3. 1980 - The World of Greyhawk Folio. TSR's first campaign sourcebook. 4. 1981 - The Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert rules. Revived and continued the D&D-AD&D dichotomy that would continue until 1993. 5. 1983 - I6 Ravenloft dramatically (excuse the pun) changed the way TSR designed its adventure modules, setting the stage for Dragonlance and the other story-based adventures. 6. 1985 - Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures released as a means to keep TSR from going under. The first two of a series of books dramatically increases the rules volume for AD&D, and the first instance of releasing hardbacked rules additions to make money. 7. 1987 - Gary Gygax is officially kicked out. (He had been in and out of control of the company going all the way back to 1981.) Greyhawk is scrapped. The Forgotten Realms is introduced. Generic adventure modules are discontinued. Gygax's & Mentzer's 2e plans are scrapped, with Zeb Cook, Steve Winters and the rest going back to the drawing board. D&D is given more emphasis with the Gazetteer series of supplements. 8. 1989 - 2e. Spelljammer is the first of the ever-increasing number of settings. 9. 1991 - The D&D line is bifurcated between the Challenger and Beginner series, effectively cutting its market in half. The great Rules Cyclopedia is essentially the beginning of the end for D&D. 10. 1993 - All support for D&D is discontinued. D&D's Known World/Mystara setting is turned into a 2e setting. 11. 1997 - After turning out products at a near absurd level, TSR goes under and stops producing anything. 12. 1998 - TSR is acquired by WotC. 13. 2000 - TSR is dissolved, WotC releases 3e. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-17-05 09:38 PM RA, that was great, with little explanations and everything. Do you think there are any turning points related to Dragon or Dungeon magazines? (Other than their first being introduced...) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : RobertFisher Date : 11-17-05 10:49 PM The one thing I noticed missing from RA's list was the Holmes basic. Although probably more people were introduced to the hobby by the Moldvay or Mentzer basic sets, it was Holmes who thought a basic set was needed & made it happen. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Darth_Azalin Date : 11-17-05 11:59 PM Dragon - went thru major changes not only doubling in price, but color pages, less other company information, type formats, and a lot of editors. Dungeon - got combined with polyhedron and again price and page contexts. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-18-05 03:23 AM The next question... I'd love to hear people speculate on how things might have turned out had some of these things not happened. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 11-18-05 09:06 AM For me a huge turning point in 2e AD&D was the introduction of Dark Sun as the first non-traditional fantasy setting. I believe this really had a lasting effect on many individuals that later became game designers for d20 outlets. The mix of divine, arcane and psionic on an alien world allowed a lot of people to look at the traditional fantasy settings differently. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-18-05 11:05 AM The one thing I noticed missing from RA's list was the Holmes basic. Although probably more people were introduced to the hobby by the Moldvay or Mentzer basic sets, it was Holmes who thought a basic set was needed & made it happen. I thought about putting both the 1e Monster Manual and the Holmes rules in there. Both came out in 1977 and both were a very big part of (A)D&D's late 70's explosion of popularity. I didn't though, and the reason was because they didn't really change anything significant about the rules. Both were seen at the time to be extensions of OD&D. It really wasn't until the 1e PHB came out a year later that people saw the big changes that were in AD&D. It wasn't until the 1981 B/X rules came out that it was clear that AD&D and D&D were going to be two distinct systems being produced concurrently. R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : rogueattorney Date : 11-18-05 11:20 AM For me a huge turning point in 2e AD&D was the introduction of Dark Sun as the first non-traditional fantasy setting. That's debatable. Spelljammer came out in 1989. Ravenloft came out in 1990. Dark Sun came out in 1991. I guess it depends on how you want to define "non-traditional fantasy setting." And for the record, Al-Qadim was 1992, Planescape was 1994 and Birthright was 1995. And then, there's the 2e boxed-set relaunches of their pre-2e worlds... Greyhawk (1992), Forgotten Realms (1993), Dragonlance (1989), Lankhmar (1996), Mystara (1994). This doesn't even include the sub-settings (Maztica, Red Steel, etc.) and minor one-shots (Jakandor, etc.). By my count that's 11 campaign setting boxed sets in 8 years. Is there any wonder why TSR went out of business? R.A. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : Zaxon D'Mir Date : 11-18-05 11:53 AM True RA but DS is vastly different than Spelljammer. SJ may be considered non-traditional in the sense that the adventures were designed to be in space but most of the traditional trappings made there way into the overall design. The rpg industry changed greatly after DS was released. I know guys that held a cult-like reverence for DS and they were die hard FR or GH before. On your other point. Yep, TSR beat the campaign settings to death with a +5 rock of uber-crappiness! I stopped buying accessories in 1997 because it was a waste of money. I also cancelled my Dragon sub too because the articles very rarely had anything I could use. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : Elendur Date : 11-18-05 01:45 PM One thing I think was very significant was the hardbound book(starting with the Monster Manual). That format is still in use today. It's to my knowledge the first game printed in book form rather than a box. That's one of the most unique things about the hobby for me, that it is both a game and a literary pursuit. I'm just as likely to be kicked back on the couch reading a D&D book as actually playing the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : Attila Date : 11-19-05 02:27 PM The major turning points I would pick out are: 1) Release of the hardcover AD&D PHB (1978). Significant because it opened up the game up to the masses. 2) Release of Unearthed Arcana. Significant because it marked the beginning of the end of the game created by Gygax, et al. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : WizO_Cat Date : 11-19-05 03:07 PM The major turning points I would pick out are: 1) Release of the hardcover AD&D PHB (1978). Significant because it opened up the game up to the masses. Well, I'm not sure that I would subscribe to this. First, the first printing of the Holmes edition of Basic D&D was in 1977 while the first printing of the Players Handbook was in June 1978. Second, though not everybody started with Basic D&D before going to AD&D, a fair share did. I'd say that the Holmes edition of Basic D&D opened up the game to all as much as the Players Handbook. It's a main reason why modules B1 and B2 are mentioned as favorite modules by some gamers. After buying the Basic D&D box, those were the modules that came with the rules of the game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : skathros Date : 11-20-05 09:36 AM There were many Turning points in D&D/AD&D, but they all seemed like a natural outgrowth of the rules for which they were writted or the edition that preceeded them (OD&D/BX/RC, or Basic/Advanced/2E). These took the game (and the rules) in new directions, but you could always recognize the core game. The biggest Turning point would have to be 3E (not good, not bad, no trolling, all IMHO). This took not only the rules, but the core philosophy of the game in a completly different direction to build an entierly new game. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : havard Date : 11-21-05 11:06 AM There were many Turning points in D&D/AD&D, but they all seemed like a natural outgrowth of the rules for which they were writted or the edition that preceeded them (OD&D/BX/RC, or Basic/Advanced/2E). These took the game (and the rules) in new directions, but you could always recognize the core game. The biggest Turning point would have to be 3E (not good, not bad, no trolling, all IMHO). This took not only the rules, but the core philosophy of the game in a completly different direction to build an entierly new game. I think the elements currently in 3E always existed in previous editions, but would rather say that 3E is some aspects of the former games taken to an extreme while others were discarded. This is true with both rules and flavor IMO. In a way I felt the same about 2E. It provided a much more "realistic"/low fantasy version of D&D, than the heroic/epic flavor I was used to with BECMI (especially the M+I parts) D&D. This I guess is why I never accepted the "Too Heroic" criticism of 3E. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-21-05 01:08 PM I think the elements currently in 3E always existed in previous editions, but would rather say that 3E is some aspects of the former games taken to an extreme while others were discarded. This is true with both rules and flavor IMO. A good way of putting it. In a way I felt the same about 2E. It provided a much more "realistic"/low fantasy version of D&D, than the heroic/epic flavor I was used to with BECMI (especially the M+I parts) D&D. This I guess is why I never accepted the "Too Heroic" criticism of 3E. True, but don't you think 3e pushes even more in this direction than BECMI? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : havard Date : 11-21-05 01:23 PM True, but don't you think 3e pushes even more in this direction than BECMI? Its hard to say. I'm inclined to say yes, but then BECMI using Weapon Mastery and questing for immortality could make things pretty über heroic... :cool: Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : skathros Date : 11-21-05 06:34 PM Its hard to say. I'm inclined to say yes, but then BECMI using Weapon Mastery and questing for immortality could make things pretty über heroic... :cool: Håvard ;) That's so true! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : rbrt_Spade Date : 11-21-05 07:09 PM The change of flavor & magic from 2e to 3e. I love reading the old campaign setting books(dl & fr). The old flavor I personaly think is better. During 2e, many good ideas for dnd & the dl, fr book line came out-time of troubles, war of the lance for example. The writers just seemed for creative.The 3e system just has seen kinda bland on it. Also in magic idems. It was a jump in the game systems. The idea of magic items to levels just dont mesh. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-21-05 10:16 PM Its hard to say. I'm inclined to say yes, but then BECMI using Weapon Mastery and questing for immortality could make things pretty über heroic... :cool: Håvard And 3e's Epic Level Handbook, plus the 3e Deities and Demigods.... But I guess you're right, it's not a straightforward comparison. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 22] Author : havard Date : 11-23-05 08:02 AM And 3e's Epic Level Handbook, plus the 3e Deities and Demigods.... But I guess you're right, it's not a straightforward comparison. What sucked about those books is that they aren't compatible. :weep: Anyways, the reason I dont like the kind of criticism against 3E saying it is too much focused on über heroism is because that is something I really like in Classic! Okay it was flawed, but I really enjoyed the fact that you could kill a huge red dragon with one blow and even one day rise to the ranks of immortality. I realize that is quite far from the style those used to Gygax's OD&D though. Just to make things clear, Epic style campaigns isnt the only thing I enjoy playing, but I like the fact that the game allows for it. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 23] Author : Elendur Date : 11-23-05 11:25 AM Yeah, even if it isn't your personal style(and it isn't mine), the game has always supported high powered play. There was a time for me personally, when I only had access to the basic book, getting the 1e PHB was a big jump up for me. As a kid with a new book my eye naturally gravitated to the quivering palm and meteor swarm type stuff. Of course eventually I grew up and realized high power was only fun if you'd earned it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 24] Author : Vokhev Date : 11-23-05 12:26 PM Just to make it clear, I only ever played 2e so I wouldn't know much about turning points before or after that. Also, for years, I had access to only a handful of books and virtually nothing from the settings. I discovered most settings after they went out of print except for their names and a general idea of what they were. To me the turning point that most changed the game was the Player's Options series. Now, I have a hard time imagining the game without subabilities and, above all, character points. I would also say that settings and adventures based more on mood (like Ravenloft and Planescape) rather than just exploring dungeons and killing dragons made the game into much more than it was before. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 25] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-23-05 12:51 PM Anyways, the reason I dont like the kind of criticism against 3E saying it is too much focused on über heroism is because that is something I really like in Classic! For the record, I didn't mean it as a criticism. The campaigns I play in tend toward the lower levels (not always, but usually), but I also like having the option. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 26] Author : havard Date : 11-27-05 01:38 PM For the record, I didn't mean it as a criticism. The campaigns I play in tend toward the lower levels (not always, but usually), but I also like having the option. Sorry, didnt mean to attribute you to an opinion that wasn't yours. I agree with you, one of the things I value most in an RPG is having the option of running many different campaign types with the same game. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 27] Author : Cab Date : 11-28-05 08:49 AM I'm of the opinion that the biggest turning points were the three editions of the advanced game and scrapping of the D&D product line. The obvious and direct successor of original D&D was BECMI rather than 2nd ed AD&D, so scrapping it was the end of an era. Of all three editions of AD&D, 3e is by far the biggest shake up the game has ever had. Whether you like it or not, you can't argue that it isn't more different to all that has come before than most of us would have ever believed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 28] Author : havard Date : 11-28-05 09:47 AM I'm of the opinion that the biggest turning points were the three editions of the advanced game and scrapping of the D&D product line. The obvious and direct successor of original D&D was BECMI rather than 2nd ed AD&D, so scrapping it was the end of an era. Scrapping the OD&D line ofcourse, happened some time before the introduction of 3E. I agree that this represented a turning point though, but I suppose that also means that the creation of AD&D1, the creation of the two paralell lines also was a turning point. The shift from 1E to 2E in the AD&D line might also be considered a major turning point, at least if you listen to the 1E crowd who have been complaining about 2E ever since it came out. (I've never played 1E so I dont know if it is justified). Of all three editions of AD&D, 3e is by far the biggest shake up the game has ever had. Whether you like it or not, you can't argue that it isn't more different to all that has come before than most of us would have ever believed. That is ofcourse if you assume that 3E is a continuation of the AD&D line. IMO it does a good job of drawing on both previous lines. Prestige Classes and Feats can be seen as inspirations from BECMI, as can Racial Classes (from UA). That said, I agree that 3E was a dramatic shake up of the game, though I liked seeing the Advanced bit gone from the name... *ducks* :allalone: Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 29] Author : Cab Date : 11-29-05 04:29 AM That is ofcourse if you assume that 3E is a continuation of the AD&D line. IMO it does a good job of drawing on both previous lines. Prestige Classes and Feats can be seen as inspirations from BECMI, as can Racial Classes (from UA). That said, I agree that 3E was a dramatic shake up of the game, though I liked seeing the Advanced bit gone from the name... *ducks* :allalone: Håvard Ducking and covering there Havard? ;) (how does one get the accent above the a in your name?) That we can even have a discussion about whether 3e is a continuation of the same line is enough to tell us that it is the biggest mechanical change the game has ever seen. I agree that there are some things that 3e does well, but as you probably know I'm a bigger fan of classic. The advanced bit being gone from the name was an inevitable consequence of dropping the classic D&D game. Shame, I think, but it makes no sense to have one game and call it advanced. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 30] Author : havard Date : 11-30-05 11:41 AM Ducking and covering there Havard? ;) Absolutely! I always end up being a devil's advocate. Blame academia... :P (how does one get the accent above the a in your name?) Sort of like an aw-sound. Like awesome. Or awful. You chose which ;) Oh, and the d at the end is silent. That we can even have a discussion about whether 3e is a continuation of the same line is enough to tell us that it is the biggest mechanical change the game has ever seen. Yep. Though, as you know, the most dramatic change is one of perception rather than mechanically, since the D20+bonus is in actuality the same as the ThaC0 mechanic. Ofcourse, perception and "feel" are important. Also, the fact that this mechanic was used for all rolls rather than just combat situations was a major change. I wonder if peoples reactions had been different if they had kept ThaC0 and used that mechanic for skills (something I once toyed with for Classic D&D...) I agree that there are some things that 3e does well, but as you probably know I'm a bigger fan of classic. I am ofcourse one of those annoying people who like all editions of the game. The one I used to dislike was AD&D2, though now that it is no longer the dominant gaming line I've gotten more sympathetic towards it. I guess I always liked the underdogs... The advanced bit being gone from the name was an inevitable consequence of dropping the classic D&D game. Shame, I think, but it makes no sense to have one game and call it advanced. The whole deal of having two extremey similar games was a bit silly. Especially since Classic eventually became quite a complex game. Håvard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 31] Author : Cab Date : 11-30-05 11:48 AM Yep. Though, as you know, the most dramatic change is one of perception rather than mechanically, since the D20+bonus is in actuality the same as the ThaC0 mechanic. Ofcourse, perception and "feel" are important. Also, the fact that this mechanic was used for all rolls rather than just combat situations was a major change. I wonder if peoples reactions had been different if they had kept ThaC0 and used that mechanic for skills (something I once toyed with for Classic D&D...) I think that there are bigger changes in 3e than JUST that. The concept of feats, integration of skills outside of class degrading the importance of class somewhat, unified skills in one system, the very concept of 'attacks of opportunity'... Playing 3e can be a very different experience to playing the older games. Which isn't to say that there's not some very flawed stuff in the older editions (weapon speeds, I mean, why?), but it does mean that for a whole host of reasons 3e is different. But still, identifiably a form of D&D. I am ofcourse one of those annoying people who like all editions of the game. The one I used to dislike was AD&D2, though now that it is no longer the dominant gaming line I've gotten more sympathetic towards it. I guess I always liked the underdogs... You're not the first person I've heard say that. The whole deal of having two extremey similar games was a bit silly. Especially since Classic eventually became quite a complex game. Well, yes. But even at its most complex, classic was faster to play than AD&D. The basic mechanics were simpler, when you got the hang of them. From a marketing point of view, the direction that was taken with classic (WAAAAY oversimplified black-box basic followed by the RC, which I believe killed the line) was foolish, but as a game it worked tremendously well. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 32] Author : caeruleus Date : 11-30-05 11:03 PM I think that there are bigger changes in 3e than JUST that. [...] the very concept of 'attacks of opportunity'... Minor point... attacks of opportunity were actually introduced into D&D in the 2e Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. 3e just made it standard. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 33] Author : Cab Date : 12-01-05 05:06 AM Minor point... attacks of opportunity were actually introduced into D&D in the 2e Player's Option: Combat & Tactics. 3e just made it standard. Thanks for the clarification. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 34] Author : Attila Date : 12-04-05 11:05 PM (snip)......... But even at its most complex, classic was faster to play than AD&D. The basic mechanics were simpler, when you got the hang of them. From a marketing point of view, the direction that was taken with classic (WAAAAY oversimplified black-box basic followed by the RC, which I believe killed the line) was foolish, but as a game it worked tremendously well. I'm not familiar with the RC version. Why do you say it killed the line? Was it really that bad or did TSR just get tired up having two lines of similar products? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 35] Author : Cab Date : 12-05-05 08:54 AM I'm not familiar with the RC version. Why do you say it killed the line? Was it really that bad or did TSR just get tired up having two lines of similar products? The problem was that the black box was terrible. Oversimplified, board game mechanics, aimed at children. Wasn't a good board game, wasn't good D&D either. The Rules Cyclopedia, as a way of having all of your rules in one easy to use reference guide, is brilliant. As a way of learning to play D&D it sucks. And unfortunately the jump from the black box to the RC is rather major, one doesn't naturally lead into the next as the red box Basic rules leads into the blue box Expert. Classic D&D was then no longer a good, solid introduction to roleplaying any more. People weren't starting on Basic D&D as a prelude to either higher level classic or Advanced. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:18 AM.