Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2011 16:52:57 GMT -6
This is why I will probably not buy into DD when it comes out. We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? Another flavor of OD&D is not what I am interested in, especially if that means more work for me in having to make conversions to fit my game again. So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over. I understand your viewpoint, it is ours as well. I know that seems a bit paradoxical at first, so let me explain. John felt it was in BHP's best interest to have a set of rules he had complete control over. This would allow us to use the familiar elements of the game we know and love without having to add in more to make it "compatible" with another company's product. In short, we wanted a stable set of rules upon which to base our material. I'm currently working on an expansion to the game which will probably include elements you're looking for (if I'm reading your posts correctly). There are plans for aggressive support with modules and gaming aids, as well. So, perhaps we'll be able to make both sides in this discussion happy! If not? Well, we can still meet at the game table, roll up some characters with some funny looking dice, and have a ball ... with whatever set of rules you end up using. Peace, fellow gamer ... and may you always roll 20s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2011 19:17:26 GMT -6
This is why I will probably not buy into DD when it comes out. We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? Another flavor of OD&D is not what I am interested in, especially if that means more work for me in having to make conversions to fit my game again. So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over. I understand your viewpoint, it is ours as well. I know that seems a bit paradoxical at first, so let me explain. John felt it was in BHP's best interest to have a set of rules he had complete control over. This would allow us to use the familiar elements of the game we know and love without having to add in more to make it "compatible" with another company's product. In short, we wanted a stable set of rules upon which to base our material. I'm currently working on an expansion to the game which will probably include elements you're looking for (if I'm reading your posts correctly). There are plans for aggressive support with modules and gaming aids, as well. So, perhaps we'll be able to make both sides in this discussion happy! If not? Well, we can still meet at the game table, roll up some characters with some funny looking dice, and have a ball ... with whatever set of rules you end up using. Peace, fellow gamer ... and may you always roll 20s. Hm, this sent me looking for info on DD which I had not previously looked at. Appears quite promising, from what I have read so far, even though I have not seen the rules themselves yet.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 13, 2011 19:37:48 GMT -6
We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? For exactly the same reason Dan Proctor made Labrynth Lord when Basic Fantasy already existed, that is because it is not the game "we" wanted. S&W suits your tastse and that's all good, but S&W is arguably (like Basic Fantasy) not especially faithfull to any particular version of D&D and it certainly adds a lot of ambguity where the original rules are more precise and detailed. Again, that may be a matter of taste, but surely you can appreciate that some may not be as content with the S&W approach.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Nov 13, 2011 20:24:17 GMT -6
This is why I will probably not buy into DD when it comes out. We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? Another flavor of OD&D is not what I am interested in, especially if that means more work for me in having to make conversions to fit my game again. So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over. I understand your viewpoint, it is ours as well. I know that seems a bit paradoxical at first, so let me explain. John felt it was in BHP's best interest to have a set of rules he had complete control over. This would allow us to use the familiar elements of the game we know and love without having to add in more to make it "compatible" with another company's product. In short, we wanted a stable set of rules upon which to base our material. I'm currently working on an expansion to the game which will probably include elements you're looking for (if I'm reading your posts correctly). There are plans for aggressive support with modules and gaming aids, as well. So, perhaps we'll be able to make both sides in this discussion happy! If not? Well, we can still meet at the game table, roll up some characters with some funny looking dice, and have a ball ... with whatever set of rules you end up using. Peace, fellow gamer ... and may you always roll 20s. Sounds good to me. I'll be watching closer with that bit of knowledge in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Nov 13, 2011 20:35:17 GMT -6
We have an OD&D clone (three versions, in fact) why do I, or we, need another? For exactly the same reason Dan Proctor made Labrynth Lord when Basic Fantasy already existed, that is because it is not the game "we" wanted. S&W suits your tastse and that's all good, but S&W is arguably (like Basic Fantasy) not especially faithfull to any particular version of D&D and it certainly adds a lot of ambguity where the original rules are more precise and detailed. Again, that may be a matter of taste, but surely you can appreciate that some may not be as content with the S&W approach. I see it as being spread to thin. I actually like the departures from the base material as it gives the feel of being another iteration in a possible history of the game. For example; BFRPG feels like what would have come had Mentzer done all that he wanted with Classic D&D. By-the-by, Frank has said he would have made changes including the separation of race and class. With S&W I see what could have been if OD&D had a second edition. The rules are made more clear and understandable in presentation and the mechanics are more sound than the source. My personal tastes leans more toward preserving the spirit, not the letter, of the rules.Therefore, I can accept liberties being taken with the source material that others may not. The above two games, in my opinion, follow that philosophy. This is also why, my problems with TLG as a company aside, I like the C&C system. If I wanted complete accuracy to the letter of the rules then I would just use the originals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2011 20:42:54 GMT -6
Not all clones are clones. There are currently only 2 "true" retro-clones, OSRIC for 1e and LL for B/X D&D (there may be a couple of others for 2e and the Rules Cyclopedia, but I haven't looked at them closely). All others are D&D + house rules or games that aim to give the feel of a particular edition without attempting to faithfully clone it. Neither S&W or LL + OEC tried to be a true clone and their makers don't deny it, it simply wasn't what they set out to achieve.
DD has been designed to be a true clone of the original 3 booklets. People who aren't interested in playing an authentic original game will see it as "yet another clone", they are not the target audience. Those who have the originals but want to preserve them, or those who don't want to fork out potentially hundreds for original copies but do want to experience the game that started it all, these are the people for whom DD is aimed at.
Oh and of course DD will present the original rules in a much clearer format, a problem that made the original game frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 14, 2011 14:23:41 GMT -6
For exactly the same reason Dan Proctor made Labrynth Lord when Basic Fantasy already existed, that is because it is not the game "we" wanted. S&W suits your tastse and that's all good, but S&W is arguably (like Basic Fantasy) not especially faithfull to any particular version of D&D and it certainly adds a lot of ambguity where the original rules are more precise and detailed. Again, that may be a matter of taste, but surely you can appreciate that some may not be as content with the S&W approach. I see it as being spread to thin. I actually like the departures from the base material as it gives the feel of being another iteration in a possible history of the game. For example; BFRPG feels like what would have come had Mentzer done all that he wanted with Classic D&D. By-the-by, Frank has said he would have made changes including the separation of race and class. With S&W I see what could have been if OD&D had a second edition. The rules are made more clear and understandable in presentation and the mechanics are more sound than the source. My personal tastes leans more toward preserving the spirit, not the letter, of the rules.Therefore, I can accept liberties being taken with the source material that others may not. The above two games, in my opinion, follow that philosophy. This is also why, my problems with TLG as a company aside, I like the C&C system. If I wanted complete accuracy to the letter of the rules then I would just use the originals. See, thing is that for me, and I think I've seen a few others voice much the same, S&W doesn't "preserve the spirit of the original" especially well. Indeed, to me it feels much more like a clone of Modlvay/Becmi. Its not so much the "liberties" I'm talking about - everyone will have different opinions on those - it is the focus and presentation of the game. S&W core isn't particulalry distinguishable from Moldvay or Becmi in play, other than having a few odd spells and classes tossed in. There's a lot of game in the 3lBB's that is not represented in S&W except in the vaugest of terms. Not saying there is anything wrong with that if that is your preference, but there are those of us who like the quirky stuff, the treasure tables, stocking tables, hexcrawl rules and so forth that distinguish OD&D from classic.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Nov 14, 2011 15:47:47 GMT -6
Funny, I would have figured the BECMI comparison would have come from S&W: Complete rather than core.
Also remember, I am a bit of a minority in the whole scheme of this OSR thing. I'm probably a bit more 'liberal' in my views than others are when it comes to rules and style.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Nov 14, 2011 17:59:01 GMT -6
Funny, I would have figured the BECMI comparison would have come from S&W: Complete rather than core. Also remember, I am a bit of a minority in the whole scheme of this OSR thing. I'm probably a bit more 'liberal' in my views than others are when it comes to rules and style. No worries, in the OSR thing I think it takes all kinds and you're right complete is probably a better comparison there - I tend not to keep track of the different S&W versions all that well.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 14, 2011 21:02:31 GMT -6
Flames of War and Field of Glory (ancient/ medieval) are the 2 minis wargames which are widely marketed and currrently popular.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Nov 14, 2011 23:02:01 GMT -6
So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over. With all due respect, this argument is as bogus as can be. As. Bogus. As. Can. Be. How much support material do you want? Even if you subtract modules from the equation, there's still more supplement material coming out than I can keep up with. Add in the modules, then the free stuff and it's more than I could ever read, even if I did have the money to buy every scrap of it. But, every time someone want to criticize the clones, it's the same old thing. "That's all the OSR ever does. Clones!" And it's just totally, completely, utterly not true. My latest OSR News post had 7 items, that weren't modules and weren't clones. The one before that, 8. So, in the past month that's 16 items, not counting re-releases or updated stuff, not counting upcoming products I reported but counting one pre-order because you get the pdf now and not counting modules and not counting clones. How much more do you want this month? Granted, I went on hiatus for a few weeks, so there was some catch up reporting. But read back further. underdarkgazette.blogspot.com/search/label/OSR%20NewsRead back as many months as you want, then try to make that argument again. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2011 23:48:33 GMT -6
Up till about two years ago, on a meagre budget of $10 to $15 a month, I was able to keep up with the OSR output (which of course doesn't include free stuff). Over the last couple of years I haven't been able to, there is simply too much being released for me to afford on my pocket money. An excellent visual example is Matthew's brilliant Publishers & Products list on the DF forum, most of which is modules and supplements, not rulebooks. What makes it even more impressive is that it is in no way exhaustive, as there is plenty out there that is not on the list and once again it doesn't include the vast amount of free stuff out there.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Nov 15, 2011 0:06:33 GMT -6
So I stand by what I have stated before. I personally would like to see more support material released, not more clones or more modules. I think we need to supplement what is out there not make the same thing over and over. With all due respect, this argument is as bogus as can be. As. Bogus. As. Can. Be. How much support material do you want? Even if you subtract modules from the equation, there's still more supplement material coming out than I can keep up with. Add in the modules, then the free stuff and it's more than I could ever read, even if I did have the money to buy every scrap of it. But, every time someone want to criticize the clones, it's the same old thing. "That's all the OSR ever does. Clones!" And it's just totally, completely, utterly not true. My latest OSR News post had 7 items, that weren't modules and weren't clones. The one before that, 8. So, in the past month that's 16 items, not counting re-releases or updated stuff, not counting upcoming products I reported but counting one pre-order because you get the pdf now and not counting modules and not counting clones. How much more do you want this month? Granted, I went on hiatus for a few weeks, so there was some catch up reporting. But read back further. underdarkgazette.blogspot.com/search/label/OSR%20NewsRead back as many months as you want, then try to make that argument again. ;D I stand partially corrected. With the two systems I won't touch with a ten-foot-pole removed, removing modules, splitting AD&D based from OD&D based there is quite a bit out there. I need to pay more attention to you blog. However, I still stand by my opinion that things are getting a bit crowded as far as systems. I like the fact that this stuff is out but, I don't want to see a repeat of the 'D20 Glut'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 6:20:47 GMT -6
... a problem that made the original game frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp. I can not agree with this at all, I have never viewed it as "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." I remember the first time I ever played and eight of us sat down with the ref who had been reffing for about a year (his senior year of high school with a few friends) without contact with anyone else who played and we just sat down with this freshman - we were all college freshman and sophomores - he gave us a 5 minute orientation, we rolled up characters and started playing. I went through seven (7) characters that evening because I always chose to play fighting men who were the stand in the gap kind of guy, I enjoy playing that way. I do not remember anyone of us four (4)guys and four (4) gals being confused or having any trouble understanding how to play. But we all had this in common: we were all voracious readers, and had been raised on fairy tales, and read all the fantasy, and science fiction that we could get our hands on. We had all read Burroughs, Howard, Tolkien and many others. Several dabbled at writing their own at that point in time. In addition, the ref had played table top war-games with miniatures and we played with OD&D with miniatures so we always knew where every character was with respect to the enemy and to each other. The other thing that we had in common was that we were all game players of all kinds of games and we all adapted immediately to the ref making rulings as we went. No rules lawyers in the group, we went with the flow and just had fun. A couple of months into playing, the ref decided based on our in game play and our out of game discussions that he would let me ref too and that gave him a chance to play. Over the next few years we gradually moved from him reffing all the time initially to where I was reffing about 65% of the time and he was reffing about 35% of the time. No one else in the group reffed or as far as I know wanted to ref. But "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." not at all did anything even remotely like that cross any ones lips bitd. Even now playing in my current campaign, even the nine (9) year olds don't have any trouble grasping the concepts. Playing wisely requires a certain amount of maturity but they progress every time they play and even the seven (7) year old gets most of it and his main challenge is that he loves to draw and has trouble focusing on anything else. YMMV
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 7:14:22 GMT -6
That was your personal experience tPD, but I don't believe it mirrors the experiences of a great many. Even the authors admitted it was disorganised, making it difficult for many to grasp. And certainly if this forum is anything to go by, a great many people who, like yourself, started gaming with the original books often have quite contrary opinions as to what the rules actually say and will express surprise at "never having seen that particular rule" when it is pointed out, not because they lack experience with the game, but because the disorganised format of the rules got in the way.
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Nov 15, 2011 8:53:45 GMT -6
That was your personal experience tPD, but I don't believe it mirrors the experiences of a great many. Even the authors admitted it was disorganised, making it difficult for many to grasp. And certainly if this forum is anything to go by, a great many people who, like yourself, started gaming with the original books often have quite contrary opinions as to what the rules actually say and will express surprise at "never having seen that particular rule" when it is pointed out, not because they lack experience with the game, but because the disorganised format of the rules got in the way. I think I'd tend to agree here. While yes, the mechanics are rather simple, the arrangement, presentation, and at times seemingly contradicting verbiage can be confusing to new players. ...i.e. in other words, the game is simple in spite of the original rulebooks as written and presented. I must have read Chainmail 4 or more times cover-to-cover until it finally clicked. (it wasn't the rules themselves.... perhaps, it was the simplicity that made it obscure?)
|
|
|
Post by Necropraxis on Nov 16, 2011 12:04:12 GMT -6
aldarron The hexcrawl and stocking tables are my favorite aspect of the 3 LBBs (particularly the fact that stronghold creation for wilderness adventuring and stronghold creation for PCs is the same thing). That is just inspired, and as far as I can see has not been reflected in any other publication or product (though I bet 10 people will jump up and correct me now). (By the way, I was greatly helped in reaching that conclusion by Victor Raymond's excellent Wilderness Architect series.) Regarding disorganization, I view this as partially a feature, especially as someone coming to OD&D after considerable experience with AD&D 2nd Edition (and minor experience with several other editions). Just like making sense of contradictory results from random tables is the source of much campaign creativity, the rulings and interpretations required for playing OD&D are part of what gives it so much vitality. I know others have said that already in other places and more eloquently, but I think it bears repeating. I agree such organization might not be the best for introducing new players to the hobby, especially with today's attention spans, but who is your intended audience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2011 22:50:30 GMT -6
That was your personal experience tPD, but I don't believe it mirrors the experiences of a great many. Even the authors admitted it was disorganised, making it difficult for many to grasp. And certainly if this forum is anything to go by, a great many people who, like yourself, started gaming with the original books often have quite contrary opinions as to what the rules actually say and will express surprise at "never having seen that particular rule" when it is pointed out, not because they lack experience with the game, but because the disorganised format of the rules got in the way. I have a bit of trouble making the leap from "often have quite contrary opinions as to what the rules actually say" or "disorganized format" to "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." I think that one of the wonderful things about the rules is the fact that many things can be interpreted differently depending on the experience and literary background each person brings to the table. The authors also did not intend for all campaigns to be identical to each other. I also have a bit of trouble believing that the most common experience was "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." when you look at how fast the game grew and spread bitd. If it was that bad, it would have died, since very few people will stick with something that is "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." If it was that bad, the first 3 printings would have supplied the full demand for the product, they would have stopped at the reported 4000 to 6000 copies and we would not be having this conversation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 0:12:04 GMT -6
The authors also did not intend... Before the third supplement (ELDRITCH WIZARDRY) was in print, it had been decided that some major steps would have to be taken to unify and clarify the D&D game system... “Basic” D&D does not differ greatly from the Original except that it is far better structured — thus far more understandable for an individual previously not acquainted with the concept of fantasy role playing... Because of the numerous supplements and articles necessary to make D&D a more easily understandable and multifaceted game, we decided that a whole new game was in order. There were too many gray areas in the Original, too many different books, too many varying approaches offered. Gygax, The Dragon magazine #14, May '78When Tactical Studies Rules published the first DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule sets, the three little books in brown covers, they were intended to guide people who were already playing the game. As a guide to learning the game, they were incomprehensible. There was no description of the use of the combat table. Magic spells were listed, but there was no mention of what we all now know is a vital aspect of the rules: that as the magic user says his spell, the words and gestures for it fade from his memory and he cannot say it again. When I edited the rules prior to the first edition of the D&D Basic Set, it was to help the thousands (now millions) of people who wanted to play the game and didn’t know how to get started. Gary Gygax acknowledged that some sort of beginner’s book was badly needed, and he encouraged me to go ahead with it. Holmes, The Dragon magazine #52, August '81Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Gygax, The Dragon magazine #26, June '79
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 21:06:58 GMT -6
The authors also did not intend... Before the third supplement (ELDRITCH WIZARDRY) was in print, it had been decided that some major steps would have to be taken to unify and clarify the D&D game system... “Basic” D&D does not differ greatly from the Original except that it is far better structured — thus far more understandable for an individual previously not acquainted with the concept of fantasy role playing... Because of the numerous supplements and articles necessary to make D&D a more easily understandable and multifaceted game, we decided that a whole new game was in order. There were too many gray areas in the Original, too many different books, too many varying approaches offered. Gygax, The Dragon magazine #14, May '78When Tactical Studies Rules published the first DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule sets, the three little books in brown covers, they were intended to guide people who were already playing the game. As a guide to learning the game, they were incomprehensible. There was no description of the use of the combat table. Magic spells were listed, but there was no mention of what we all now know is a vital aspect of the rules: that as the magic user says his spell, the words and gestures for it fade from his memory and he cannot say it again. When I edited the rules prior to the first edition of the D&D Basic Set, it was to help the thousands (now millions) of people who wanted to play the game and didn’t know how to get started. Gary Gygax acknowledged that some sort of beginner’s book was badly needed, and he encouraged me to go ahead with it. Holmes, The Dragon magazine #52, August '81Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Gygax, The Dragon magazine #26, June '79I will grant you that Gygax was a master of hyperbole and that with the lawsuit by Arneson, he had to justify or thought he had to justify many of the things they were doing. Bottom line, it if were bad enough to justify the use of such extreme language, it would have died, by the third printing they would have fully supplied the demand of those with the background to take it and run with it. But that is not what happened, the number of people playing OD&D was in the range of 500,000 (from estimates that I have seen based on an average of 1 ref and 5 players per campaign based on the number of copies sold*) before Holmes ever saw print. You will never convince me that such extreme language and such demeaning language about how incomprehensible and unplayable OD&D is has any truth to it, when at least 500,000 people where playing the 129,000-131,000 copies of the game that were sold before Holmes saw print.* There is nothing wrong with better structure, but the game lost a lot in the way it was done. Your last quote "Gygax, The Dragon magazine #26, June '79" is a statement of what the strength of the game was and without it being designed that way we would not be having this conversation. *The 1st to 3rd print are reported as being 4000-6000 copies, the 4th print in Nov of 1975 was 25,000 copies, the 5th print from Dec 75 to Apr 76 is not stated on Acaeum but I have see estimates of at least a minimum 100,000 copies with high estimates of 500,000 copies. With a minimum of 129,000 to 131,000 copies sold before Holmes saw the light of day - 500,000 players is a reasonable estimate so I trust what I have read. Then the 6th print 1977-1979 sales figures are not reported but I have seen estimates of over a million copies up to 5 million - sold concurrently with Holmes which came out in 1977. While many, many people bought the Holmes version that never saw a copy of the 3LBBs, there were also many many people that never bought a copy of Holmes that played with the 3LBBs and whatever else they had. To say that OD&D is "incomprehensible" and "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." is an insult to the 100s of thousands who played and enjoyed the game and had no trouble doing so. I do not for a minute believe that I and the friends that I played with bitd were unusally brilliant and preceptive so that we could figure out this game that you claim virtually no one could figure out how to play. Again I will grant you that Gygax was a master of hyperbole, but I will not grant that OD&D is "incomprehensible" and "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." That is much too extreme shark-jumping language to describe a game that 100s of thousands played and enjoyed before Holmes saw the light of day. Gygax calling it a non-game is rather odd, since what it really was is the univeral game, that game that becomes my game to anyone who refs/DMs it. The below description describes its perfection not its deficiencies. Just change "non-game" to "the universal game" and you have the truth. Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it.
Gygax, The Dragon magazine #26, June '79
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Nov 17, 2011 21:39:27 GMT -6
My group was probably in the minority - I was introduced via Holmes, and the PH and DMG had not yet come out when I started in '78. We used Holmes for up to level 3, and then used the LBBs for higher levels and just winged it until the DMG finally came out. We found the LBBs a little opaque but it was no obstacle to play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2011 22:33:43 GMT -6
...the number of people playing OD&D was in the range of 500,000 (from estimates that I have seen based on an average of 1 ref and 5 players per campaign based on the number of copies sold*) before Holmes ever saw print. You will never convince me that such extreme language and such demeaning language about how incomprehensible and unplayable OD&D is has any truth to it, when at least 500,000 people where playing the 129,000-131,000 copies of the game that were sold before Holmes saw print. That's all well and good but ignores the fact that in those early years a great many of those thousands of players learned to play the game not by reading the books, but by actually playing the game. In other words being taught by someone who had already learned to play. To infer that "at least 500,000 people" or twice that number were playing because they read the books, let alone without a hitch, is disingenuous, or at the very least wildly optimistic. There is nothing wrong with better structure, but the game lost a lot in the way it was done. I'm certainly on record here and elsewhere of publicly stating that the original rules are both complete and easy to grasp - when reformatted! To say that OD&D is "incomprehensible" and "frustratingly obscure and difficult to grasp." is an insult to the 100s of thousands who played and enjoyed the game and had no trouble doing so. Don't tell me, tell the guys who said those things - "the authors"!!!! Well you can't of course, they're both dead, but I'm dead certain from the man's passion for the game that in saying this, Holmes didn't set out to insult "the 100s of thousands who played and enjoyed the game and had no trouble doing so." I do not for a minute believe that I and the friends that I played with bitd were unusally brilliant and preceptive so that we could figure out this game Calm down, I never said otherwise. ...this game that you claim virtually no one could figure out how to play. Uh-uh, no I didn't. Go back and read my posts, I never claimed any such thing. I didn't say the game was incomprehensible, just that some saw it as such, including some of the authors of the game. I didn't say that no-one back then could understand it, that would obviously be untrue. I didn't say you and your friends were smarter or dumber than anyone else, nor did I infer in any way that you were lying about how easy you all picked up the game. I DID say that it was your personal experience and that many did not have that same experience. I'm not making this up. I have simply read a multitude of testimonies from people didn't find it as easy as you did. If there seems to be more people out there who found it difficult against those who had no problems, it's either because the numbers speak the truth or because the latter group are not as vocal online as the former. Once again, I firmly believe the 3LB is a complete game that suffered from poor organisation. Most people would certainly agree with me on that second point. I also firmly believe that when the text of the 3LB are reformatted the game becomes vastly easier for non-gamers to pick up without help. And finally I can't comprehend why we're even butting heads over this.
|
|
|
Post by harami2000 on Nov 18, 2011 12:16:16 GMT -6
(aside) ...the 4th print in Nov of 1975 was 25,000 copies, the 5th print from Dec 75 to Apr 76 is not stated on Acaeum but I have see estimates of at least a minimum 100,000 copies with high estimates of 500,000 copies... Then the 6th print 1977-1979 sales figures are not reported but I have seen estimates of over a million copies up to 5 million - sold concurrently with Holmes which came out in 1977. While many, many people bought the Holmes version that never saw a copy of the 3LBBs, there were also many many people that never bought a copy of Holmes that played with the 3LBBs and whatever else they had. Erm, no... where did those "estimates" come from? Even a simply sanity check against turnover for the whole of TSR - $1.25m for fiscal year ending 9/78, $2.25m for y/e 9/79 at a time when Holmes was selling 12,000 per month towards the end of that period, in addition to whatever that newfangled AD&D stuff might've been selling - suffices to discard such numbers for the 3LBB (4th-7th). The 3LBB were nothing more than a curiosity for the vast majority of new players early on; which is why copies from the last (sub)print were still hanging around in stock the best part of a decade later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 22:35:20 GMT -6
Once again, I firmly believe the 3LB is a complete game that suffered from poor organisation. Most people would certainly agree with me on that second point. I also firmly believe that when the text of the 3LB are reformatted the game becomes vastly easier for non-gamers to pick up without help. [/quote I can agree with this statement.
|
|