History Question: Why D&D/AD&D Split?

[raindog308]

What was the reason for the D&D / AD&D split?

I realize they're different games, but from a consumer point of view, they're very similar and it seems like poor marketing.

In the Holmes day, it was Basic, move on to Advanced.

Later it was Basic move on to Expert, but there's also Advanced.

Then kept the D&D/AD&D dichotomy until 3e and it always struck me as strange.

Was there some legal reason for maintaining two separate versions of D&D?

[jacar]

When AD&D came around, D&D became the basic (Intro) set. AD&D was designed for clarity and detail. There are just way more rules and much more detail in AD&D. On top of that, the game combines all of the stuff from the Original D&D + supplements.

[raindog308]

Oct 25, 2010 11:26:01 GMT -6 jacar said:

When AD&D came around, D&D became the basic (Intro) set. AD&D was designed for clarity and detail. There are just way more rules and much more detail in AD&D. On top of that, the game combines all of the stuff from the Original D&D + supplements.

Right, so in 1979ish I was playing Holmes and was told if I wanted to go past 3rd level, it was time to move to AD&D (that's in Holmes).

Later, they had Expert as well. So while (until 3e), there was always a Basic, for a long time there were two paths from that - Expert or AD&D. Later versions of D&D (not AD&D) were very complete and went to level 30-something. BECMI is a pretty full game.

I've just always wondered why TSR had this dual track path.

[jdn2006]

Tim Kask was involved and answered much the same question on Dragonsfoot.

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&p=894592&hilit=basic#p894592

One reasoning being D&D was offered as the simpler game for simple people. The 128 pages of the basic and expert rule books offered everything needed for people just wanting to adventure now and then.

AD&D as the more Advanced game. Ironically some things were simpler, but overall it had a lot more to it.

TSR made different games for different audiences. The group I started with saw AD&D but did not need it, and played basic. Once TSR dropped basic and concentrated on money over gaming, the group lost interest. More pages does not increase the appeal for everyone.

[Mr. Darke]

There are also rumors that this had to do with the Dave Arneson lawsuit as well. I don't know this for sure so forgive me if I am wrong.

[jdn2006]

I've heard the rumor.

As with anything, even Tim's answers would be based on his perceptions. Even when talking with Gary, he wouldn't know Gary Gygax's own deep inner drives and reasons.

Just in case someone reads too much into my own comments: I easily understand why people enjoy different games, including those like AD&D and newer editions. They have balls of fun playing them. The only regret I have is that some companies don't try to also offer games for simpler tastes, in addition to the other games they sell.

[jdn2006]

A little more from Tim...

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&p=569175#p569175

[aldarron]

Regarding the lawsuit issue. I'm fairly certain that planning for AD&D began in '76 if not earlier, at a time when Arneson was still on fairly good terms with TSR (although that relationship probably started to sour before he left the company). So it wasn't the lawsuit per se that led to the creation of AD&D nor does it seem likely Gygax created AD&D just to escape paying Arneson royalties, but Gygax did concieve of AD&D as "his" and argued it was a differen't game than D&D and therefore Arneson should not get royalties for it. So I wouldn't think not wanting to pay royalties was a main motivator for Gygax, more of a hoped for benefit.

[Mr. Darke]

It is hard to say what exactly happened with that. I have found there are some interesting comparisons with the early days of the hobby and the early days--of all games--Monopoly. Do some studying on what went on with that game for some interesting facts. After I learned what I did I really think gaming is better off without large companies.

[sd]

One of Gygax's stated aims at the time was the development of a standardized ruleset to cut down on fiat and variants in the then-burgeoning tournament scene.

[aldarron]

The question really is "Why did the D&D line contiue?" Originally, the intent seems to have been to drop D&D for AD&D. We've discussed this a bit in the Holmes thread IIRC, and the answer seems to be that the Holmes boxed set was a surprisingly good seller - which led to the creation of the Moldvay set, etc. So D&D continued because people kept buying it. Its also intereesting to note that Holmes himself approached Gygax and wrote the Holmes booklet voluntarily. Gygax apparently had no plans to create a D&D introductory boxed set, until gifted with the Holmes rulebook. So ultimately Holmes may be responsible fo the whole thing.

[Falconer]

The OD&D set remained available until it was replaced by the Expert Set in 1981.

[Finarvyn]

My understanding is that AD&D was Gary's plan from early on, but that the entire product line would follow that path. The lawsuit caused TSR to regroup somewhat, offering both D&D and AD&D product lines along with the claim that they were different games. I've always been surprised that the courts "bought" the two-game argument since they clearly both come from the same genesis of OD&D core rules.

[teramis]

Oct 31, 2010 7:50:02 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I've always been surprised that the courts "bought" the two-game argument since they clearly both come from the same genesis of OD&D core rules.

I'm still surprised at that too. Back in the day when I edited some stuff for the Expert rule set just after working on some AD&D products, it became immediately apparent to me that there was virtually no difference between that system, Basic, or AD&D for 98% of the design work involved.

[thegreyelf]

Oct 25, 2010 22:11:13 GMT -6 sd said:

One of Gygax's stated aims at the time was the development of a standardized ruleset to cut down on fiat and variants in the then-burgeoning tournament scene.

This was my understanding as well. AD&D was meant to clarify, expand, reorganize, and standardize the game for tournament play.

[barrataria]

As to keeping D&D in print going forward as a parallel system, Gary said that this was in part for international markets/compatibility concerns. I don't remember whether that was from marketing research that said overseas buyers found "Advanced" offputting, or because they felt the hardcovers were too expensive for the market.

My impression is that most of the foreign-language materials were for D&D, and that's why.