AD&D Sucks and they will tell you why

Captain Rufus · August 07, 2009, 06:26:52 PM

I would have kinda agreed with the original post, except he bashes Tunnels & Trolls which is evil since T&T is fricking awesome.

Its like the first rules light RPG that lead to the more interesting games and styles of games afterwards.

I am not sure Paranoia or D6 (for examples) would have been the same if T&T hadn't come first.

Fifth Element · August 07, 2009, 07:27:00 PM

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988Eric Strobel is the only person quoted above who's talking about the newest edition. The others are just saying D&D sucks, period.

Edition wars are a much later phenomenon.

Easier to have edition wars the more editions you have, I suppose.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988(2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)

That sounds quit edition warry to me.

arminius · August 07, 2009, 08:06:40 PM

It may sound that way to you, but I can assure you, it wasn't the same at all.

Closest thing, and I can only hypothesize since I was out of D&D by then, would have been "core 3" vs. fans of OA and UA.

ggroy · August 07, 2009, 08:54:28 PM

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988Eric Strobel is the only person quoted above who's talking about the newest edition. The others are just saying D&D sucks, period.

Edition wars are a much later phenomenon.

What we did have, back then: (1) RQers (and pretty much everyone else) vs. D&Ders. But this wasn't the "conservatives" vs. "progress" debate that some would like to cast as a parallel to the 4e-wars. (2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)

Where did the DragonQuest players fit into this picture?

T. Foster · August 07, 2009, 09:02:51 PM

Quote from: ggroy;319019Where did the DragonQuest players fit into this picture?

I mostly remember indignation that TSR had killed their game after acquiring it, and assurances to kids like me who hadn't seen it that it was way better than D&D and the folks at TSR knew that and were scared to admit it. And then a few years later when TSR released a new edition of DQ that sank like a stone, it was because TSR had (deliberately out of jealousy?) screwed it up.

ggroy · August 07, 2009, 09:14:16 PM

Quote from: T. Foster;319021I mostly remember indignation that TSR had killed their game after acquiring it, and assurances to kids like me who hadn't seen it that it was way better than D&D and the folks at TSR knew that and were scared to admit it. And then a few years later when TSR released a new edition of DQ that sank like a stone, it was because TSR had (deliberately out of jealousy?) screwed it up.

I remember finding a copy of the SPI DragonQuest books in the bargain bin and picking it up, in those days.

At first it looked like a neat system. But after playing it for awhile, it turned out to be very slow and deadly. (At the time I wasn't familiar with wargames).

Pierce Inverarity · August 07, 2009, 09:40:23 PM

El knows this much better than I do, but I believe the TSR DQ was released simply to preserve copyright, which would have lapsed after X years OOP. Didn't the guy who bought FGU pull a similar trick?

ggroy · August 07, 2009, 09:51:19 PM

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;319029El knows this much better than I do, but I believe the TSR DQ was released simply to preserve copyright, which would have lapsed after X years OOP. Didn't the guy who bought FGU pull a similar trick?

I think you may be thinking of a trademark, and not copyright.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if TSR was just releasing DQ as a way of preserving the DQ trademark. Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?

arminius · August 07, 2009, 09:54:09 PM

That was a theory at the time, I don't know if anyone knows "why" ultimately. It's the only plausible one though.

The game was, indeed, screwed up by TSR. I haven't seen the TSR edition but I know they "sanitized" it (à la 2e) and introduced a bunch of typos. It was minimally promoted after years of absence in the marketplace, and no adventures were re-printed.

Anyway, the DQers, the TFTers, the Ysgarthers, the C&Sers,and pretty much everybody else (like I said) hated on D&D for a bunch of reasons. But the dynamic was different from, say, 3e vs. 4e because unlike today, the "innovators" who put down the "old game" were in the minority, fragmented, and much weaker in terms of market power.

arminius · August 07, 2009, 09:56:22 PM

Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?

To my knowledge, no. Judges Guild released a couple of dual-statted modules but I'm pretty sure that was while SPI was still alive. Later TSR used the TM to produce this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1543

TheShadow · August 07, 2009, 10:03:22 PM

Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?

Yes indeed.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/dq.html

Age of Fable · August 08, 2009, 03:38:00 AM

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988What we did have, back then: (1) RQers (and pretty much everyone else) vs. D&Ders. But this wasn't the "conservatives" vs. "progress" debate that some would like to cast as a parallel to the 4e-wars. (2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)

Ironically I did a little of both--(2), then (1).

From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.

I don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.

I suppose that explains why Tunnels & Trolls wasn't very popular (although despite its image, it did have 'realistic' features that D&D didn't have: damage-reducing armour, attribute requirements for weapons, XP for combat not treasure, and smaller creatures being harder to hit with missile weapons).

PS Calling it Advanced D&D: best marketing to nerds ever.

Melan · August 08, 2009, 05:46:51 AM

Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?

Yes. A friend of mine played The Shattered Statue with his group back in the late 80s, and considers it one of the best AD&D adventures of all time. While I have no access to the product, I wouldn't be surprised - Paul Jaquays was probably the most consistently good adventure designer of that era.

Melan · August 08, 2009, 05:53:00 AM

Quote from: Age of Fable;319108From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.

I don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.

Oh yes, definitely familiar. That rhetorical quagmire came to dominate Hungary much later, mostly in the late 90s, but it was entirely frustrating to try and argue against the tremendous groupthink that "realism" (understood as physical world simulation and historical authenticity) could be the only possible legitimate way of having fun with RPGs. I became fascinated, I tried to like it, and when I didn't, I drifted from gaming for three years. God bless Palladium for bringing me back.

Age of Fable · August 08, 2009, 08:48:40 AM

By the late 90s I think Australia had discovered whiny vampires, although I didn't play then.