Quote from: James J SkachI'm asking for you to point me to the sales data that includes the free downloads of OSRIC, or the secondhand purchases of AD&D.

I don't have any.

I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed, however; I can point to the sales data of games like AD&D and OSRIC. For example:

D&D Players Handbook: #3,237 in Books on Amazon.com
Castles & Crusades Players Handbook: #181,194 in Books on Amazon.com
Hackmaster: Official Players Handbook: #323,617 in Books on Amazon.com

So, again, where's your data?

Quote from: James J SkachReally?  It seems to fit the second definition fine - at the very least be in  proximity.

No, it's not. And if you have to qualify your statement, you know it's not, too.

Quote from: James J SkachI've asked for data that somehow undergirds the manner in which someone knows the tastes and feelings of "today's RPG consumer" other than as anecdotes.

Go to your FLGS, thumb through the new releases, and you'll have a hands-on view of the tastes of today's RPG consumer. Then go to the bin where they sell second hand copies of AD&D books, flip through one, and you'll have an idea of the gulf between those products and the ones being produced today.

Seanchai

Quote...but it still seems to me like all the major stuff is there from previous editions...

Yes, a lot of the flavour is there. They did an amazing job of preserving the brand identity. But you start looking at the actual mechanics there is a world of difference. Come to think of it maybe a better analogy is the the new VW Bettle vs. the old.

QuoteI also don't think the abstract nature of AD&D combat is better served with lots of specific types of combat options and manuevers.

See AD&D is all over the place here. It has all this detail crap in there but doesn't really cover much of anything that players usually want to try to do. Lots of rules but just not any particularly useful to giving any sort of base to work off of to figure out rulings. So you ended up with a bunch house rules that had little-to-no overarching guidelines.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardFrankly, I wish games today had more mad genius' like Gary writing colorful rules than illiterate fluff propping up mediocre settings.

It is out there if you look for it and some of it fortunately doesn't suffer from the same level "stream of conciousness" disorganization and split-personality (and some does, or worse).  That's really where I think Gygax falls down. He just isn't that organized a person and lacks the inclination organize his rules. He had these cool concepts that he put into some advice pieces but it didn't occur to him, he didn't understand how to, and/or was unable to due to other external pressures mould rules to support the ideas...or at least not undercut them. In no smart part I suspect because in the end he doesn't really give a hoot about the rules. "Here are some rules *shrug* whatever."

So you've got this somewhat uneven, though at times insightful advice and then rules that don't fit it.

P.S. And no, figuring out when Gary is "winking" isn't even close to straightforward.  He's a mischevious, compulsive shit disturber. :stirthepot: I suspect he himself isn't always entirely clear on when he's being over-the-top or how much.

Colonel Hardisson, on art:

QuoteWhat do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians and/or critics, Lockwood is the most technically proficient, by far. Tramp isn't far behind, and Erol Otus, much as I love him, would be a distant third. ...

Unfortunately, I don't have any links handy to previous discussions (and since they are on ENWorld, I probably wouldn't find them anyhow), but in short, it is my considered opinion that art doesn't become good art just because an artist has mastered his technique. It becomes good art by being evocative and/or iconic; by its ability to generate interest and emotion. See, for example, the difference between Frazetta and his imitators - Frazetta is all about vehemence and raw power; his paintings are often just swirls of colours, much less detailed than a typical Vallejo piece. Yet Vallejo feels posed and artificial, despite more attention to the small stuff. In this respect, I consider some of early gaming art - the aforementioned artists, as well as Professor M.A.R. Barker - excellent indeed.

David Sutherland is an interesting case. It is clear he wasn't good on the technical side, even if he advanced a lot, and demonstrates better ability on his colour pieces. It also has to be taken into account that Dave literally had to crank out art on a very short notice, usually a few hours per piece or so (I think Frank Mentzer mentioned this?). But why I consider him great is that what he depicts is D&D. Slightly comic book-like, with adventurers advancing in tunnels, wizards shooting spells at monsters, or looking for treasure - completely iconic. More iconic than the iconic characters of 3e, in any case.

Seanchai:

QuoteWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Mostly, yes, in more ways than you would think. AD&D is indeed inconsistent with what today's game buying consumers want to see. It is in the line of expectations, however, with a lot more RPG players - just about all respectable estimates I have seen on the matter seem tu suggest that there is a wide "passive" hobby out there, whose participants are happy to play their games without buying any new materials or even coming online. My anecdotal evidence also lines up with this point -- of the gamers I have played with, only a few visit message boards, even fewer buy anything except the odd dice or miniature, but a lot more run campaigns with out of print rulesets (usually AD&D 2nd edition or M.A.G.U.S., a Hungarian FRPG).

All in all, I would say that for a game that has been out of print for almost seven years (for 2nd edition AD&D) or eighteen years (for 1st edition AD&D and various basic editions), A/D&D has proven surprisingly resilient; much more so than could be explained if the technology argument held water. That it can support sizable and active fan sites (e.g. Dragonsfoot, and maybe 2e-oriented sites I don't usually visit) and make small-press efforts viable is IMO adequate proof that there are a lot of people actually playing the damned thing. Again, this is a game that saw no support for several years, isn't available in game stores and doesn't have dedicated publications.

Regarding your (and others') argument that games are analogous to technology, I disagree. Technology - mechanics - is only a part of a game. These aspects can be made better by utilising well-tried design principles. I certainly wouldn't argue about AD&D's mechanical superiority vs., say, 3.* D&D. Ascending AC, consistent rules and the like are objectively more intuitive than the alternatives.

Yet a game is more: it is a set of assumptions about gameplay, it is a way of how the individual bits interplay, it is the kind of experience that using the rules generates. It is also the flexibility of the ruleset; the ability to fine-tune them without causing serious damage to the whole (this may be an advantage in highly subjective games like D&D). It is also about writing: communicating ideas to the user, making him interested and excited about using the game at the table, and supporting him, above all, with ideas.

It is my point that AD&D, a mechanically outdated and - yes - inferior game works so well in other departments that it could survive to this day without support, stand successfully against second-tier RPGs and, again, support an active community - who are, of course, only a part of the number of its players. That's not bad, not bad at all.

Quote from: SeanchaiI don't have any.

I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed, however; I can point to the sales data of games like AD&D and OSRIC. For example:

D&D Players Handbook: #3,237 in Books on Amazon.com
Castles & Crusades Players Handbook: #181,194 in Books on Amazon.com
Hackmaster: Official Players Handbook: #323,617 in Books on Amazon.com

So, again, where's your data?

Among the four things that jump out at me when I look at this... First, you've listed D&D to show, what, changes in taste?  I've said before that I don't think 3.X is any more like than AD&D than it is similar - but it it similar.  So tastes, if they have changed, have not changed so dramatically.

Second, I don't see AD&D or OSRIC. Are you using C&C and Hackmaster to show old tastes? I mean, I suppose it tells us something, though I'm not sure what.

Third, how about the top ten list from this very site? If you weed through, depending on how joe combines a few things or doesn't, you get Basic D&D as 2nd (or 4 and 6), GURPS 3rd ed (3rd not 4th) at 6 (or 7), and C&C in the runners-up. Now I will admit, up front, that this list does not include AD&D or OSRIC.  But if you want to use "similar" games in your amazon source, it's fair to use them for this.

Fourth, I dont' have any. I've stated before I don't even know if any exists to support either side of this debate. I have anecdotal stuff that makes me doubt the position asserted.  And that's the point, really. You say "I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed." Well, yes, you do. Or the person who claimed that AD&D is not longer within the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" does.  Because that's an assertion of fact.  I didn't make that statement, I expressed doubt in it's validity based on my experiences. Given that, I think it's perfectly logical to ask for evidence of said assertion.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, it's not. And if you have to qualify your statement, you know it's not, too.

Let me be less polite - it does fit the second definintion, so your citation is full of crap. See how much more confrontational that is? I'm trying not to be - especially because, as I've stated before, I'm not sure what to make of this "today's RPG consumer" stuff.  So I qualify my statements.  It doesn't mean I know I'm wrong and defending a bad position.  It means two things.  I'm unsure and I'm trying to be polite.

Quote from: SeanchaiGo to your FLGS, thumb through the new releases, and you'll have a hands-on view of the tastes of today's RPG consumer. Then go to the bin where they sell second hand copies of AD&D books, flip through one, and you'll have an idea of the gulf between those products and the ones being produced today.

I do, from time to time when the chaos of life allows.  I'm blessed in that I have an FLGS (though not as L as I'd like) that is spectacular. This guy carries stuff that's so unheard of it's not funny. Huge bins (in the middle of the quite impressive space for an FLGS) full of stuff I've never even heard of - much of it old and/or out of print. He even has an auction twice a year.  People bring in the stuff they no longer want and auction it off for credit in the store (at least that's the way it used to work, been a while since I've been able to attend).  In fact I'm missing one today due to my daughter's illness.  These are people getting rid of "old taste" stuff, yes?  And the people bidding?  They are acquiring old taste stuff.  The place is a madhouse. People come from all over. So bringing up my F"L"GS is not the right direction.

And one last thing about your assertion.  The products might have changed, but not enough to say that "today's RPG consumer" is somehow that much different than the one from 20 years ago - not altogether. And yes, that's another qualifier in attempt to find some middle ground. Have tastes changed at all? Only a fool would disagree. Have they changed so much as to make the very existence of AD&D outdated and out of the realm of "today's RPG consumer?" On that our opinions appear to diverge. The facts have yet to be sorted through.

Quote from: MelanBut why I consider him great is that what he depicts is D&D. Slightly comic book-like, with adventurers advancing in tunnels, wizards shooting spells at monsters, or looking for treasure - completely iconic. More iconic than the iconic characters of 3e, in any case.

I just don't see it. I was buying those books back when they were first being published, and I distinctly remember being disappointed at how poor the art was. This was in comparison with books of comparable price. And I was just a 13 year old kid at the time. Hell, there were any number of comic books I was reading at the time, priced below fifty cents, that had art that blew away anything in any D&D book of the time. It just didn't matter all that much to me that the TSR art depicted dungeoncrawls and the like. I kept wondering why they didn't get better artists to depict those dungeoncrawls.

Quote from: blakkieYes, a lot of the flavour is there. They did an amazing job of preserving the brand identity. But you start looking at the actual mechanics there is a world of difference. Come to think of it maybe a better analogy is the the new VW Bettle vs. the old.

The more things change, the more they stay the same in the case of D&D though. THAC is mathematically the same as THACO, The saving throw system is a little funky looking now, but you still use it the same basic way. When you compare it to all the games out there, it looks more like AD&D than anything else. Granted, it's a different enough game now that I prefer 1st ed.

Quote from: blakkieSee AD&D is all over the place here. It has all this detail crap in there but doesn't really cover much of anything that players usually want to try to do. Lots of rules but just not any particularly useful to giving any sort of base to work off of to figure out rulings. So you ended up with a bunch house rules that had little-to-no overarching guidelines.

Well, I think thats because players of the past wanted to do different things than todays players. Those Lake Geneva guys must have really wanted to win the cold war of polearm superiority, hehe. Those were gamers inspired by "appendix N" and wargames, rather than Xena and Dragonball Z. I think the plethora of rules and tables WAS the base to figure out rulings.

Quote from: blakkieIt is out there if you look for it and some of it fortunately doesn't suffer from the same level "stream of conciousness" disorganization and split-personality (and some does, or worse). That's really where I think Gygax falls down. He just isn't that organized a person and lacks the inclination organize his rules. He had these cool concepts that he put into some advice pieces but it didn't occur to him, he didn't understand how to, and/or was unable to due to other external pressures mould rules to support the ideas...or at least not undercut them. In no smart part I suspect because in the end he doesn't really give a hoot about the rules. "Here are some rules *shrug* whatever."

So you've got this somewhat uneven, though at times insightful advice and then rules that don't fit it.

I have to disagree with your assessement of Gygax "falling down". I think the Players Handbook and the Monster Manual are organised just fine. The Dungeon Masters Guide is more baroque, perhaps. That's the nature of DMing though. The index helps, but it's the nature of the beast that there are bits hidden in odd spots, (checking to see if your character is "keen-eared" for example) especially considering that the players were not supposed to read it. If it was too well organised, the players would find ways to lawyer the game to death after all.  

In the end, I suppose Gary's advice is more or less insightful depending on the kind of game you want to play. I'll grant you some of the rules don't neccessarily fit the advice, and where that was the case back in the day, we scrapped the rules and played in the spirit of the game as we saw it. Some folks took that one step further and made their own games, but really the gameplay of Runequest, T&T, Arduin, etc was only mechanically different from AD&D. In any case, I think the 1st ed DMG should be required reading for all gamemasters, even if you dont agree with Gary, he went there first and the lessons of those days are still valid.

Quote from: blakkieAnd no, figuring out when Gary is "winking" isn't even close to straightforward. He's a mischevious, compulsive shit disturber.  I suspect he himself isn't always entirely clear on when he's being over-the-top or how much.

Well, you may have a point there. Maybe that's why I find his rules and gaming commentary to be facinating reading.

Quote from: MelanMostly, yes, in more ways than you would think. AD&D is indeed inconsistent with what today's game buying consumers want to see. It is in the line of expectations, however, with a lot more RPG players - just about all respectable estimates I have seen on the matter seem tu suggest that there is a wide "passive" hobby out there, whose participants are happy to play their games without buying any new materials or even coming online.

I agree with that—I just don't agree that they're playing AD&D and other games from the 70s and 80s. Or that the those who are playing those games outweigh the segment of the gaming population that's actively purchasing and playing today's games.

Quote from: MelanThat it can support sizable and active fan sites (e.g. Dragonsfoot, and maybe 2e-oriented sites I don't usually visit) and make small-press efforts viable is IMO adequate proof that there are a lot of people actually playing the damned thing.

I think people are playing older games—I just don't think they're the majority. And if we're using collective terms to refer to the majority...

Quote from: MelanTechnology - mechanics - is only a part of a game. These aspects can be made better by utilising well-tried design principles. I certainly wouldn't argue about AD&D's mechanical superiority vs., say, 3.* D&D. Ascending AC, consistent rules and the like are objectively more intuitive than the alternatives.

I'm not trying to make that argument. I believe that 3e is mechancially superior to AD&D, but that's just a personal opinion.

I used scrub boards, hand drills, et al., as an example because scrub boards still work just fine. They still get clothes clean. Hand drills still make holes. I'm not saying the technology of scrub boards and hand drills is any less functional, just that people have moved on for other reasons. For example, they take too long to work or require too much effort.

AD&D and other older games are still prefectly playable—(We played the Pacesetter edition of Chill not too long ago)—but I'm saying they're not to consumers' tastes for reasons other than strict playability.

Quote from: MelanYet a game is more: it is a set of assumptions about gameplay, it is a way of how the individual bits interplay, it is the kind of experience that using the rules generates.

That's true, but those are basically extrinisic to the product purchased.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachFirst, you've listed D&D to show, what, changes in taste? I've said before that I don't think 3.X is any more like than AD&D than it is similar - but it it similar. So tastes, if they have changed, have not changed so dramatically.

3e is pretty different from AD&D. For example, it's core mechanic is much, much more unifed (a trait of more modern games). Also, I'm not just talking about mechanics. The production values and presentation of the two products is vastly different.

Quote from: James J SkachAre you using C&C and Hackmaster to show old tastes?

Yeah. These (and other products) are banking on similarity to AD&D to sell products.

Quote from: James J SkachYou say "I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed." Well, yes, you do. Or the person who claimed that AD&D is not longer within the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" does.  Because that's an assertion of fact.  I didn't make that statement, I expressed doubt in it's validity based on my experiences. Given that, I think it's perfectly logical to ask for evidence of said assertion.

I absolutely agree in principle. But in this case, you're basically asking me to prove that the sky is blue. If you want proof that the sky is blue, just look up. It's right there for anybody to see.

Quote from: James J SkachLet me be less polite - it does fit the second definintion, so your citation is full of crap.

This has nothing to do with membership in any group. It's about products and people's tastes. I suggest that if you feel this about people themselves, it's because you're taking it personally.

Quote from: James J SkachSo bringing up my F"L"GS is not the right direction.

But it is. Do as I suggested: Take an old A&D book from the second hand bin, physically juxtapose it with a new release, and flip through them. Compare mechanics, presentation, layout, etc..

Or try this: Take the AD&D and walk among the shelves for products released in the last decade that share mechanical and physical characteristics with the older product.

I've got my old PHB and DMG right here. They're full of tiny type, dense text, not much in the way of art, mismatched art, page after page after page of charts, scattered mechanics, restrictions and exceptions, etc.. It's just not what people expect from an RPG these days...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai3e is pretty different from AD&D. For example, it's core mechanic is much, much more unifed (a trait of more modern games). Also, I'm not just talking about mechanics. The production values and presentation of the two products is vastly different.

I'm more than familiar with the differences.  I've said in this thread that they are about as alike as they are dissimilar. Classes?  Levels? Armor Class? Some of the mechanics underneath have changed (THAC0 etc) but much of the feel is the same.  As for the unified mechanic - some see it as a good thing, others not so much. I mean, people have talked about Burning Wheel with some zeal, and it seems to have, from the little I know, different approaches for different resolution.  Is that today's tastes or old ones?

Quote from: SeanchaiI absolutely agree in principle. But in this case, you're basically asking me to prove that the sky is blue. If you want proof that the sky is blue, just look up. It's right there for anybody to see.

Yes, I see. You agree that people should back up assertions with facts or admit it's opinion...unless it's your opinion.  You believe that your opinion is as factual as "the sky is blue." You are obviously mistaken about your opinion. It's right there for anyone to see, though the sky is nice and blue today.

Quote from: SeanchaiThis has nothing to do with membership in any group. It's about products and people's tastes. I suggest that if you feel this about people themselves, it's because you're taking it personally.

It's about people who claim that there is some objective standard called "today's RPG consumer" when discussing matter of taste with respect to RPGs. The implication is that if you do not share those tastes, you are not in the group "today's RPG consumer."  Sprinkle that with dashes of "mere beer-and-pretzels roll the dice" comments, and you get elitism. I suggest the fact that you don't see that makes you unable to comment on other people's taste.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut it is. Do as I suggested: Take an old A&D book from the second hand bin, physically juxtapose it with a new release, and flip through them. Compare mechanics, presentation, layout, etc..

Or try this: Take the AD&D and walk among the shelves for products released in the last decade that share mechanical and physical characteristics with the older product.

I've got my old PHB and DMG right here. They're full of tiny type, dense text, not much in the way of art, mismatched art, page after page after page of charts, scattered mechanics, restrictions and exceptions, etc.. It's just not what people expect from an RPG these days

OK...got my Basic...got my AD&D...got my 2nd edition...got my 3.5...and...

OK, you've lost me here.  Have you been arguing all along that the products are different? Why would I disagree? What's that got to do with defining some group called "today's RPG consumer" and then claiming that you know what the tastes are of that group and then using that as a justification to review a book in a certain way?

Because, ya know, saying it's a fact that a game written in 1979 is different from a game written in 2000 is like saying the sky is blue. Congratulations on that. If you're saying that automatically somehow extrapolates to claims on the tastes of some group called "today's RPG consumer," well, on that we obviously differ in opinion.

And given all the doubts about Amazon rankings, since you quoted some...

AD&D DMG: 289,805
Fiend Folio: 168,509
Monter Manual II: 69,224
Wilderness Survival Guide: 144,508

And:

DitV: 4,033,142
Burning Wheel: 584,706
Sorcerer: 1,011,973

Draw your own conclusions about the tastes of "today's RPG consumer.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd given all the doubts about Amazon rankings, since you quoted some...

AD&D DMG: 289,805
Fiend Folio: 168,509
Monter Manual II: 69,224
Wilderness Survival Guide: 144,508

And:

DitV: 4,033,142
Burning Wheel: 584,706
Sorcerer: 1,011,973

Draw your own conclusions about the tastes of "today's RPG consumer.

I can't speak to the others and their arguments, but, again, I'm not suggesting Forge or indie games are necessarily the model of consumer tastes today. They certainly contain the elements I'm referring to, but they're not what I have in mind when discussing these things...

And ou might do better with these direct comparisons:

AD&D Player's Handbook: #60,892 in Books, $1.92 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Player's Handbook: #3,256 in Books, $15.69 cheapest purchase price

AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #295,214, $2.90 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #5,117 in Books, $17.37 cheapest purchase price

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI can't speak to the others and their arguments, but, again, I'm not suggesting Forge or indie games are necessarily the model of consumer tastes today. They certainly contain the elements I'm referring to, but they're not what I have in mind when discussing these things...

And ou might do better with these direct comparisons:

AD&D Player's Handbook: #60,892 in Books, $1.92 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Player's Handbook: #3,256 in Books, $15.69 cheapest purchase price

AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #295,214, $2.90 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #5,117 in Books, $17.37 cheapest purchase price

The most amusing part of this I can't prove.  But man could I predict what you were going to respond.

So the evidence would be that AD&D is different from 3.X and that means you (the collective, not you specific) can make some claim about "today's RPG consumer?" That seems a bit of a stretch to me - whcih is why I was going for games that seemed far more different then AD&D, they just happened to be Forgeries.

I had a response to this written yesterday morning just after the one with the Amazon.com figures, but it got eaten by the site crash.

Quote from: James J SkachYou agree that people should back up assertions with facts or admit it's opinion...unless it's your opinion.

No. Moreover, I did back up my assertions with facts.

Quote from: James J SkachThe implication is that if you do not share those tastes, you are not in the group "today's RPG consumer."

So the statement "Americans buy color TVs" is elitist because some Americans have purchased black and white TVs and the implication is that if you bought the latter, you're not American? That's stupid.

Quote from: James J SkachSprinkle that with dashes of "mere beer-and-pretzels roll the dice" comments, and you get elitism. I suggest the fact that you don't see that makes you unable to comment on other people's taste.

So you are taking this personally. I thought so.

First, I never once mentioned "mere beer-and-pretzels" anything. Second, I don't see it because it's not elitism.

Quote from: James J SkachHave you been arguing all along that the products are different? Why would I disagree?

You tell me.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat's that got to do with defining some group called "today's RPG consumer" and then claiming that you know what the tastes are of that group and then using that as a justification to review a book in a certain way?

People buy color TVs. How can you tell? Walk into a showroom and look at the models they offer. They're all color. Saying "People's tastes in electronics today run to color TVs" is a no-brainer. Anybody who bothered to walk into a showroom and look around could see that.

Given that, if I said, "Hey, I know of a TV for sale," people would reasonably expect it to be a color TV.

If they asked if it was a good TV, I could just as reasonably say, "No, it's black and white."

Now we all know that somebody somewhere likes black and white TVs. We know that some people still have and use black and white TVs. If you look, you can probably find them for sale somewhere. Black and white TVs are still perfectly functional. In their day, they were the height of technology.

The fourth paragraph does not invalid paragraphs one through three.

Now, again, if when asked if the black and white TV was good, it would also be perfectly valid of me to say, "For it's day, it was a great little TV."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI had a response to this written yesterday morning just after the one with the Amazon.com figures, but it got eaten by the site crash.

I feel your pain.  I had a thesis prepared for Pundit in an Off-Topic thread that got eaten. In fact, this very response has now been held up by a system problem. Go figure.  Fortunately I saved it

Quote from: SeanchaiNo. Moreover, I did back up my assertions with facts.

I'm sorry.  I seem to have missed those facts. If you just post which number posts they are , I'll go back and look at them again.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo the statement "Americans buy color TVs" is elitist because some Americans have purchased black and white TVs and the implication is that if you bought the latter, you're not American? That's stupid.

No, but saying something like "today's TV consumer's tastes are for large, flat screen plasma screens with HD tuners" and then reviewing a 32" cable-ready color TV as a piece of crap because it's not in line with "today's TV consumer." Which is, I believe, how this entire discussion began, no?

Quote from: SeanchaiSo you are taking this personally. I thought so.

I know I can't convince you that I'm not taking it personally, no matter how much I tell you otherwise.  I mean, I don't play AD&D anymore (not that I would necessarily turn down a game if offered), and I can't think of what else would make me take it presonally...

Quote from: SeanchaiFirst, I never once mentioned "mere beer-and-pretzels" anything. Second, I don't see it because it's not elitism.

I'm honestly sorry if it seemed I was saying you made that comment.  It was from some people discussing the review of AD&D in another forum.

Quote from: SeanchaiPeople buy color TVs. How can you tell? Walk into a showroom and look at the models they offer. They're all color. Saying "People's tastes in electronics today run to color TVs" is a no-brainer. Anybody who bothered to walk into a showroom and look around could see that.

Given that, if I said, "Hey, I know of a TV for sale," people would reasonably expect it to be a color TV.

If they asked if it was a good TV, I could just as reasonably say, "No, it's black and white."

Now we all know that somebody somewhere likes black and white TVs. We know that some people still have and use black and white TVs. If you look, you can probably find them for sale somewhere. Black and white TVs are still perfectly functional. In their day, they were the height of technology.

The fourth paragraph does not invalid paragraphs one through three.

Now, again, if when asked if the black and white TV was good, it would also be perfectly valid of me to say, "For it's day, it was a great little TV."

I'm not sure what this has to do with..well...

The flaw in your logic resides in your analogies.  In every case, you've chosen products that, if taken at face value, seem to support your assertion. However, your analogies do not represent the situation.

Your assumption is that "today's RPG consumer" would look at AD&D and say "hand drill," "washing board," or "black & white TV." Your assertion is that it's plainly clear the "today's RPG consumer" prefers something different. I'm asking you to provide something other than "AD&D and D&D 3.X are different products." That is like saying the sky is blue. This doesn't even bring into the discussion the assumption that AD&D and D&D 3.X are so different that it proves something about "today's RPG consumer."

Instead, I'm asking for some sort of proof that "today's RPG consumer" does or does not include a significant representation of people who choose, currently, to play AD&D (and similar games) or at the very least don't see it as a hand drill, washboard, or B&W TV. If it does, then it's not correct to say that AD&D is no longer in line with "today's RPG consumer." If it does not - by all means, make the claim.

I've presented the reasons why I doubt the claim that it doesn't - Amazon statistics, anecdotal evidence like the interest in OSRIC, etc. However, what you've provided is, in addition to Amazon Statistics, "AD&D and D&D are different" and "well everyone knows we all prefer color TV's." Both of which, while true, do nothing to move us closer to an understanding of any broad comment on the tastes of "today's RPG consumer;" certainly no more or less than anecdotal experience.

Contrary to your belief that I'm taking this personally, I'd really love to get some numbers on this and put the discussion to rest, one way or the other.  I've seen it lamented any number of times here and in other forums that one of the problems is that people just don't have good statistics. I mean, could we use the number of people playing certain "types" of games online? What statistics are available that could help us move beyond this with some basis in fact as opposed to opinion?

Without that, we have differing opinions - which is all well and good as long as presented as such.