Posted By vanrulzz on 09/03/2007 9:16 AM
people here have serious threadamancy power...

Posted By Bert the Troll on 09/02/2007 7:03 PM
Its still fantasy role playing. Fantsay Role Playingd oesnt equal D&D.

Otherwise MERPS/Role Master/Rifts/Shadow Run/Etc etc are all D&D.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/03/2007 2:36 PM

Very, very true. So many people seem all too willing to just accept the fundamental changing of D&D.

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 09/03/2007 4:09 PM
Are there Ampersand's? ;)

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 09/03/2007 4:09 PM

Seriously though, technically, once Gary lost control, it's no longer D&D.

Posted By Star on 09/03/2007 11:47 PM

I honestly believe that 3.0/3.5 is a MUCH better game than Gary Gygax's original D&D. He invented a game that I love - that I've played for over 20 years. He deserves all the credit in the world for that. But the current D&D hasn't just changed - it's improved. It's not the same game. It's better.

Posted By Cthulhufnord on 09/03/2007 11:53 PM


I have to agree with you on that Star.  3.0 and 3.5 took out quite a bit of the "pain" that came with running a Good D&D game.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/04/2007 8:29 AM
It's all your opinion that it's a better game now. There are a lot of people out there that would disagree.

I think 3.5 is better in some ways than previous ediitons and worse in other ways.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/04/2007 8:29 AM
It's all your opinion that it's a better game now. There are a lot of people out there that would disagree.

I think 3.5 is better in some ways than previous ediitons and worse in other ways.

Outside of those levels, the math doesn't work that way, and the game stops being fun. - James Wyatt

Posted By Bert the Troll on 09/05/2007 4:22 PM

(removes tounge from cheek and adds the disclaimer that all RPGing should be fun regardless of what rules float your boat)

Posted By Ghendar on 09/06/2007 4:22 AM

You're right of course. However, WotC has taken it upon themselves to tell me what is and is not fun. Save vs die is not fun. Get rid of it. Hmmm, I played 1E and I had fun. 1E/2E level draining is not fun. Get rid of it. 

etc, etc.

It's their game and they can modify as they see fit. However, to say that one rule or another is not "fun" is assinine to me.

Posted By PaSquall on 09/05/2007 3:58 PM

But your reasoning is a bit flawed. You could be right IF players had the choice between editions, i.e. WotC EQUALLY supporting both editions for a few years, and then checking which sells best...
You know that didn't happen. And it won't happen for the 3.5/4 transition either. That's understandable, because it's logical for WotC to focus on only one game system at a time. In the eighties, basic D&D was in competition with AD&D 1E. Basic was stopped because 1E won (commercially). Afterwards, TSR and WotC never made this mistake again : when 2E was out, 1E was not supported anymore. When 3E was out, 2E was not supported anymore. When 3.5E was out, 3E was not supported anymore. And when 4E is out, 3.5 will not be supported anymore.
Comparing 1E and 3.5E in 2007 is not fair : it's obvious that there are far more people playing the current edition than people playing an edition that hasn't been supported for almost 20 years. When new players enter a game store, they find 3.5E books, and not 1E PHBs. It's what I was saying at the beginning of the post : players (especially newcomers) don't have the choice.
It would be fairer to compare 1E and 3.5E sales in their respective decades. And you might be surprised, but 1E was more successful in the eighties than 3E is now : TSR estimated in the 1E times that there were 5.5 million players worldwide. WotC estimates that there are 3.5 million players for the current edition...
Of course you can say that 3.5E is better than 1E rules-wise, or flavor-wise... it's your opinion. No problem with that. But it can't be said that 3.5 is more successful than 1E was.
And BTW there definitely is a market for 1E, but far too small for a company of WotC's size, that's all.
One last remark : 1E is still "in the air" : just check WotC recent books : expedition to castle Ravenloft, expedition to castle greyhawk, expedition to the demonweb pits, expedition to undermountain (you can add the return to the temple of elemental evil adventure they did to "launch" 3E, too, and the many 1E modules conversions they put on their website). Not bad for a so outdated edition...

Posted By Wraithborne on 09/06/2007 6:18 AM


Well said...character death is rarely fun (I've had fun with it on occasion) whether from instant death, getting critted by a bad guy, or just getting whittled down over time and succumbing. Following their logic, how far are we really away from having death removed from the game and having save points in a dungeon that you go back to and all of your comrades are raised to full health? After all, resting isn't fun, going back to town isn't fun, heck, spending money on healing potions isn't fun.....where does it end?

Posted By Star on 09/06/2007 6:32 AM

While it's logical for WOTC to support only one edition, it is likely that they would reprint previous editions if there was enough of a market for it. How do I know? Because they did it. They reprinted miniature paperback copies of the core first edition books. I remember seeing them at the FLGS. They didn't sell well at all. They were all still there when that FLGS closed down. Nobody bought them.

Posted By Shottglazz on 09/06/2007 6:34 AM

...it's nice to see that others share my opinion of the slippery slope that WotHasbro are taking with D&D...removing the "work" from the game in favour of the rewards...doesn't that remove the whole risk vs reward system? The idea that resting, "dead" levels, less risk of character death (etc) are boring is something that I just can't wrap my head around. If these elements are so boring, why have spells per day (or even per encounter), levelling, hp or CR?

Posted By Ghendar on 09/06/2007 7:33 AM

It makes no sense to me as well. The only reason I can think of why the design philosophy is moving this way is due to the video game influence. They know young people play lots of video games these days. A game like Diablo is a prime example of what is happening to the direction of D&D. I love Diablo. It's one of my all time favorite games, but I don't want my P&P RPG to emulate that.

By the way, every class gets something at every level. There's no such thing as a dead level.

Posted By Star on 09/05/2007 11:38 AM
There isn't a market for them though - because very few people still play first edition.

Posted By Star on 09/06/2007 6:32 AM
While it's logical for WOTC to support only one edition, it is likely that they would reprint previous editions if there was enough of a market for it. How do I know? Because they did it. They reprinted miniature paperback copies of the core first edition books. I remember seeing them at the FLGS. They didn't sell well at all. They were all still there when that FLGS closed down. Nobody bought them.

Sometimes when products evolve and advance it happens that previous consumers take away your choices. This would be similar to complaining that young music fans don't have the option of buying 8-track tapes or LP's anymore - they HAVE to buy CD's because that's all there is. CD's are better than LP's and 8-tracks. Previous customers decided that and voted with their spending money. Now the older formats are not supported. Is that fair to new music buyers? Yes.

There was a time in this country that 99% of the people who owned a car owned a Ford. It was the only mass produced car for a time. Now there is a much smaller percentage of people who own Fords. There's much more competition and choices for their customers. At the time of First edition - that's all there was. Everyone started with D&D. As more choices came along some people drifted into other games. Now there are dozens of games for people to choose from. Except for nostalgia - there's no way an early 1900's Ford is better than any of the current one's. Same thing holds true for D&D - in my opinion.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/06/2007 11:16 AM

More than you think.
And it's not just 1E, it's OD&D, Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters D&D, and 2E.

A lot more than you think.

Posted By PaSquall on 09/06/2007 1:35 PM


This market would be viable for smaller editors however, but WotC will never licence old editions to them (at least that's how it has been until now...)

Posted By Star on 09/07/2007 6:01 AM
 I think that their opinion is based on nostalgia, not on an actual comparision of gameplay between the two systems.

Posted By PaSquall on 09/06/2007 1:35 PM


This market would be viable for smaller editors however, but WotC will never licence old editions to them (at least that's how it has been until now...)

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 09/07/2007 3:29 PM



Hack Master. Nuff said.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/07/2007 4:12 PM
*sigh*
I never said they were fun. My point was I had fun despite those effects. I accepted them as part of the game. I didn't whine like a little beeyotch because they weren't "fun"


And no, I'm not calling you a whiney beeyotch.

Posted By Teflon Jeff on 09/08/2007 3:39 PM


I get what you're saying. Imagine the same game without having to "accept" those effects. Wouldn't it be even more fun? I think that's what they're trying to do, make it so you don't "have to" accept certain parts.

Posted By Ghendar on 09/06/2007 4:47 PM

Which is why things like OSRIC thrive.

http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osr-ic/

Posted By Cthulhufnord on 09/03/2007 11:26 AM


I'm kinda suprised no-one took that as a custom title yet.  "The Threadomancer".

Posted By Ghendar on 09/10/2007 4:12 AM

If I did I'd have to prove my worthiness of taking the title by bumping every three year old thread I could find. That wouldn't be good for anyone.

Hmm, how about "Master of the Unthread" [:p]