TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

Didn't Monte Cook also bring a lot of his experience with Rolemaster to D&D 3, which didn't work so well because D20 isn't bounded by a percentile scale?

# ? Feb 25, 2016 15:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 22:57

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Comrade Koba posted:

"Light detail" is a massive overstatement.

Yes, and unironically, that sort of pencil-sketch setting is exactly what I look for when I'm running a game. :shrug:

Give me a pretty map, a few names, a paragraph here and there, an aura of mystery, and 'here there be dragons' and I'm set.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 15:33

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Halloween Jack posted:

Didn't Monte Cook also bring a lot of his experience with Rolemaster to D&D 3, which didn't work so well because D20 isn't bounded by a percentile scale?

What makes it actually hilarious is that AD&D was very percentile based - it just hid it. Everything was bound either to a single d20 without modifiers (and thus a percentile scale with 5% increments) or the combat system, which was 10 to -10...which again makes for 5% increments. 3e took that out and made it...well. A big loving mess, to be honest.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 15:40

Guilty Spork: Feb 26, 2011; Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

ProfessorCirno posted:

The best thing about Essentials was that WotC had no loving idea what books they were even selling. What's the evergreen product? Do you have one?

I don't think Mearls set out to tank 4e in purpose, but I do think he set out not giving a poo poo about it because he knew he was set up to make the next one. Everything he wrote reeked of "this guy has no idea what he's doing," and essentials had a bunch of pointless and stupid barbs directed at 4e itself.

EDIT: Finding the trap feats in 3.x is pointless because at least 90% of them were garbage, and only like 10% of those were intentional. Feats were page fillers. Frankly, 4e wasn't that different.

In terms of the sheer number of feats 4E may have actually gotten worse, though that's partly just because the Character Builder put ALL of them in front of you (spanning all of the actual books plus Dragon articles), which meant that by the end there were literally around 4,000 feats. One of the few things that Essentials did right was to present a focused collection of feats that were basically all useful.

On the other hand Essentials was like five different things at once, and WotC had no clear marketing message. You could pull some very useful things out of the general garbage fire, but you had to be in the know to be able to do that.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 16:35

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Halloween Jack posted:

Didn't Monte Cook also bring a lot of his experience with Rolemaster to D&D 3, which didn't work so well because D20 isn't bounded by a percentile scale?

Okay, I'm glad you brought this up, because I thought I was the only one that noticed (at least recently) and it was driving me nuts.

Rolemaster's main dice resolution mechanic is d100 + stat bonus + skill bonus, aiming for a result of 100 or higher. Probability-wise, this is similar to a percentile-roll-under system: if you have a total bonus of 55%, you have a 55% chance of getting 55 or lower on a flat d100, and a 55% chance of getting 100 or higher on a roll of d100+55.

You can also convert this to a d20 system: every +5 bonus on the d100 scale is equivalent to a +1 bonus on the d20 scale. This was a very deliberate design decision because Rolemaster was originally intended to be layered on top of or as a replacement to AD&D, so conversion from a 1-20 scale was required.

D&D 3rd Edition imitated the layout: you had a Strength score, which converted into a Strength modifier, and then you put ranks into your Climb skill, such that when you made a Climb check, you'd roll d20 + Strength modifier + Climb skill. 3rd Edition's cap on the number of ranks you could sink into a skill based on character level also resembled Rolemaster, which had a "1 rank per level" and "2 ranks per level" limit on multiple skills.

The key difference was that Rolemaster's target number was set at 100, whereas D&D 3rd Edition's DCs could be goddamned anything

A level 1 Rolemaster Fighter would have a Strength of 90 for a +10 bonus, and then could have as many as 4 ranks into Climbing for a +20 bonus, so he'd have a 30% chance of making any given climb checks outside of whatever circumstantial modifier the GM wants to put on it. As he gains levels, he can increase his Climbing skill by another 2 ranks for another 10% better chance, and you know its a 10% better chance because your baseline target is always going to be 100 or better.

This is a huge departure from 3rd Edition having a DC of "whatever the GM wants, measured against some simulationist guidelines". More to the point, it significantly curbs a player's ability to branch out and be good at multiple skills because you're always going to be chasing after a higher DC threshold, as opposed to a Rolemaster character saying "ok, I have a 60% chance of making most Climb checks. I can probably stop now and work on my Swimming instead".

Rolemaster even also had the concept of skill bonuses per character level, so a Fighter gets 1% better at Climbing, Swimming, Riding and Tracking per level, even if they don't put additional ranks into those skills. The other thing is that Rolemaster did have an "Armor Check Penalty" feature that makes you take penalties when you try to make checks involving Strength or Agility, but there were also Maneuvering in Armor skills that explicitly let you reduce this, yet another thing that didn't make its way into 3rd Edition.

It was also ahead of its time in setting attribute scores: when you selected Fighter as your class, you would automatically have a Strength and Constitution of 90 (the rough d20 equivalent of a 15/+2), no questions asked, except if you rolled even higher than that. This is mind-blowing compared to D&D 3rd Edition and 5th Edition still saddling you with 4d6-drop-lowest garbage.

When I put all of this together, it really turned me off from the assertion that 3rd Edition was "Rolemaster converted into d20" or that Cook had brought most of his experience from that game into this one, because by God, a game that actually did adopt Rolemaster's design features into a smaller and easier-to-comprehend numbers scale would be significantly better put-together than 3rd Edition was.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 16:55

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

I remember thinking (back in 2000) that 3e had also cribbed a lot from Earthdawn, but I can't for the life of me remember my reasoning behind this claim.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:15

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

gradenko_2000 posted:

When I put all of this together, it really turned me off from the assertion that 3rd Edition was "Rolemaster converted into d20" or that Cook had brought most of his experience from that game into this one, because by God, a game that actually did adopt Rolemaster's design features into a smaller and easier-to-comprehend numbers scale would be significantly better put-together than 3rd Edition was.

To be "fair" Cook's experience as a writer/designer for Rolemaster was mostly editing the Companion books full of increasingly bloaty, ill-considered optional rules cruft.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 17:37

Shrecknet: Jan 2, 2005

That Old Tree posted:

increasingly bloaty, ill-considered

PERHAPS THE SAME COULD BE SAID OF ALL D&D DESIGNERS :stat:

# ? Feb 25, 2016 19:16

LatwPIAT: Jun 6, 2011

gradenko_2000 posted:

Okay, I'm glad you brought this up, because I thought I was the only one that noticed (at least recently) and it was driving me nuts.

Rolemaster's main dice resolution mechanic is d100 + stat bonus + skill bonus, aiming for a result of 100 or higher. Probability-wise, this is similar to a percentile-roll-under system: if you have a total bonus of 55%, you have a 55% chance of getting 55 or lower on a flat d100, and a 55% chance of getting 100 or higher on a roll of d100+55.

No, a 55% chance to get higher than 100. If you include 100, it's a 56% chance. :goonsay:

gradenko_2000 posted:

The key difference was that Rolemaster's target number was set at 100, whereas D&D 3rd Edition's DCs could be goddamned anything

A level 1 Rolemaster Fighter would have a Strength of 90 for a +10 bonus, and then could have as many as 4 ranks into Climbing for a +20 bonus, so he'd have a 30% chance of making any given climb checks outside of whatever circumstantial modifier the GM wants to put on it. As he gains levels, he can increase his Climbing skill by another 2 ranks for another 10% better chance, and you know its a 10% better chance because your baseline target is always going to be 100 or better.

Are the rules for applying circumstancial modifiers significantly different between D&D and Rolemaster? Because otherwise there's no functional difference between modifying the roll and modifying the target number.

# ? Feb 25, 2016 19:21

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

LatwPIAT posted:

Are the rules for applying circumstancial modifiers significantly different between D&D and Rolemaster? Because otherwise there's no functional difference between modifying the roll and modifying the target number.

Yes, insofar as Rolemaster had something called a Maneuver Table that would let you determine a degree of success for a roll, rather than D&D's binary pass/fail mechanic.

Example: you're making a Climb check, and the GM assigns a Medium difficulty to the check. You roll d100 + Agility bonus + Climbing skill bonus. If the final result is 96 to 105, the result is "80%". That can be interpreted to main either you've completed 80% of the task within the time allotted, or perhaps you've completed the task, but took a little more time to complete it than you expected, or any other possible outcome that "just slightly less than ideal".

If the GM had assigned an Absurd difficulty to the check, a 96 to 105 result would have been "10%" only.

If the GM had assigned a Routine difficulty to the check, a 96 to 105 result would have been worth "110%", so that could mean you exceed the distance you intended to cover, or you complete it with time still left on your turn.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 00:21

That Old Tree: Jun 24, 2012; nah

gradenko_2000 posted:

Yes, insofar as Rolemaster had something called a Maneuver Table that would let you determine a degree of success for a roll, rather than D&D's binary pass/fail mechanic.

Example: you're making a Climb check, and the GM assigns a Medium difficulty to the check. You roll d100 + Agility bonus + Climbing skill bonus. If the final result is 96 to 105, the result is "80%". That can be interpreted to main either you've completed 80% of the task within the time allotted, or perhaps you've completed the task, but took a little more time to complete it than you expected, or any other possible outcome that "just slightly less than ideal".

If the GM had assigned an Absurd difficulty to the check, a 96 to 105 result would have been "10%" only.

If the GM had assigned a Routine difficulty to the check, a 96 to 105 result would have been worth "110%", so that could mean you exceed the distance you intended to cover, or you complete it with time still left on your turn.

Of course, that's moving maneuvers. There're also static maneuvers that have a single gradation of success (including partial success/failure), and the difficulty scale is the same but adds a bonus or penalty to your roll instead of determining which column you look at.

And then there're the weapon tables that go from 01 to 150, with 20 columns for armor types, and you typically start dealing damage around the 70s.

Honestly, the static maneuver table as a core element is pretty elegant, especially for the early 80s, but they buried that poo poo under a mountain of cruft.

That Old Tree fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Feb 26, 2016

# ? Feb 26, 2016 06:23

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

Getting away from D&D for a bit, you know what I miss? Cheap, small, funky counter-based wargames. I picked up an old issue of Space Gamer at a HPB some time ago and it features this game called "Kung Fu 2100" which is about kung-fu masters battling the evil Clonemasters- the map is a Clonemaster's house, he's got guards and servants everywhere, the Kung-Fu guys have all sorts of magic tricks- I have no idea if it's any good at all, but the point is it's this weird little minigame, and adjusted for inflation the issue would have cost 5.75 (bearing in mind of course that printing costs have skyrocketed, etc.)

OGRE and GEV are also classic examples of what I'm talking about- they were once sold in these small little snap cases. Cheap components, still fairly basic rules-wise, exploring unusual design concepts and spinning little science fiction stories next to them.

Nowadays what few hex and counter wargames get published tend to be very hardcore groggy simulations- nobody's printing Tactics or Kriegspiel, they've sort of accepted their fate as a niche. Wargaming now more or less means miniatures wargaming, which is fine but limits some ideas based on scale (and tends to be less about terrain because you end up making the battlefield yourself.) Board games frequently explore weird concepts, but the standard for components and art there are high enough that there's no point trying to do it on the cheap.

It's a weird little category of gaming that's fallen by the wayside and I'm not sure how it can be revisited.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 18:02

Evil Mastermind: Apr 28, 2008

Oh man the little snap case of Car Wars was one of the first games I ever bought. I miss that whole mini-game style.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 18:05

Humbug Scoolbus: Apr 25, 2008; The scarlet letter was her passport into regions where other women dared not tread. Shame, Despair, Solitude! These had been her teachers, stern and wild ones, and they had made her strong, but taught her much amiss.; Clapping Larry

Maxwell Lord posted:

Getting away from D&D for a bit, you know what I miss? Cheap, small, funky counter-based wargames. I picked up an old issue of Space Gamer at a HPB some time ago and it features this game called "Kung Fu 2100" which is about kung-fu masters battling the evil Clonemasters- the map is a Clonemaster's house, he's got guards and servants everywhere, the Kung-Fu guys have all sorts of magic tricks- I have no idea if it's any good at all, but the point is it's this weird little minigame, and adjusted for inflation the issue would have cost 5.75 (bearing in mind of course that printing costs have skyrocketed, etc.)

OGRE and GEV are also classic examples of what I'm talking about- they were once sold in these small little snap cases. Cheap components, still fairly basic rules-wise, exploring unusual design concepts and spinning little science fiction stories next to them.

Nowadays what few hex and counter wargames get published tend to be very hardcore groggy simulations- nobody's printing Tactics or Kriegspiel, they've sort of accepted their fate as a niche. Wargaming now more or less means miniatures wargaming, which is fine but limits some ideas based on scale (and tends to be less about terrain because you end up making the battlefield yourself.) Board games frequently explore weird concepts, but the standard for components and art there are high enough that there's no point trying to do it on the cheap.

It's a weird little category of gaming that's fallen by the wayside and I'm not sure how it can be revisited.

I still have my copy of Metagaming's 2nd Printing of OGRE. Bought from an ad on the back of Popular Computing Magazine in 1977 or so. I loved the Metagames' and SJG's Microgames and Dwarfstar's, and Task Force's pocket games too...Intuder, Grav Tank, Barbarian Prince, One Page Bulge...the memories.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 22:51

Glorified Scrivener: May 4, 2007; His tongue it could not speak, but only flatter.

Maxwell Lord posted:

Getting away from D&D for a bit, you know what I miss? Cheap, small, funky counter-based wargames.

They aren't cheap exactly, but have you checked out Victory Point Games? I find they scratch that itch. I've got some of the Napleonic 20 series and love them. Their solo games are cool too, especially Nemo's War.

Edit:

Babby Scrivener's first War Game (Thanks Big Sis):

Glorified Scrivener fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 26, 2016

# ? Feb 26, 2016 22:53

Alien Rope Burn: Dec 5, 2004; _{I wanna be a saikyo HERO!}

Maxwell Lord posted:

It's a weird little category of gaming that's fallen by the wayside and I'm not sure how it can be revisited.

Part of the whole "Pocket Box" phenomenon was marketing wargaming and smaller games towards a younger audience, but that whole industry has - as hobby industries in decline tend to - focused largely on their hardcore audience and away from that sort of audience-growing. Granted, I don't think the Pocket Box form of Metagaming and SJ Games needs to be brought back necessarily, but it could be nice just to have more casual games in that format you can throw into a bag or purse. And where there are a lot of those out there, most are light games like Love Letter or Zombie Dice as opposed to a more full-featured boardgame or wargame.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 23:14

Glorified Scrivener: May 4, 2007; His tongue it could not speak, but only flatter.

Also, Reaper Miniatures bought the Dwarfstar line a while back and has made them available for download for print and play, if you're into that.

# ? Feb 26, 2016 23:15

FMguru: Sep 10, 2003; peed on;
sexually

Cheapass Games kind of swam in that particular pool back in the late 1990s/early 2000s

# ? Feb 26, 2016 23:25

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Glorified Scrivener posted:

They aren't cheap exactly, but have you checked out Victory Point Games? I find they scratch that itch. I've got some of the Napleonic 20 series and love them. Their solo games are cool too, especially Nemo's War.

Edit:

Babby Scrivener's first War Game (Thanks Big Sis):

I almost posted a picture of Revolt on Antares, it was my favorite. My first TSR (or any) minigame was actually Saga, though.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 00:15

Glorified Scrivener: May 4, 2007; His tongue it could not speak, but only flatter.

I think this is the most I've posted in months, but I love these types of games. To tie it to the thread though, I'd be very interested to see sales figures (and the margins) on the
Ogre Pocket Edition Reprint SJ Games has selling for $2.95. I bought two as stocking stuffers for geek friends this Christmas and almost got one for myself, but I have the Ogre/GEV combined printing that came out in the 90's packed in a black VHS case.

I mean, they're probably viewing them as a loss leader on promoting newer versions of Ogre and subsidizing it all with Munchkin cash, but still.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 00:32

bongwizzard: May 19, 2005; Then one day I meet a man,
He came to me and said,
"Hard work good and hard work fine,
but first take care of head"; Grimey Drawer

Those little pocket games are extremely my poo poo and I would buy a endless number of them if people still made them. I have been dipping my toe into rounding up a bunch of the classic ones, but have restrained myself buy only buying a new one once I have played the last one at least three times.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 02:37

ManMythLegend: Aug 18, 2003; I don't believe in anything, I'm just here for the violence.

I think microgames have found a new niche market on Kickstarter. They're not all war games but publishers like Level 99 make microgames that the size of a deck of cards or smaller.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 04:39

Bieeanshee: Aug 21, 2000; Not keen on keening.; Grimey Drawer

Nuns with Guns posted:

I remember when someone in grogs.txt retrieved ancient posts with grognards complaining about this newfangled "Third Edition" and a lot of people whined about how much it sucked because now it played like Diablo instead of true D&D.

I remember some of that discussion being in circulation when it happened, what with the actual Diablo tie-in boxed sets, codification of items to certain 'slots', of which characters had a specific number, adoption of terminology like 'buffs', and the whole series of magical affixes they adopted. Nevermind that most of that was just clearing up uncertainties and updating terminology, it was taking OUR GAME and... huh, this stuff is a lot more elegant than our lovely house rules...

At the same time, I remember someone digging up USENET posts handwringing over compiling the AD&D rules, complaining that it would turn the game into a roguelike.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 06:36

Asimo: Sep 23, 2007

Not a roguelike, comparing it to Rogue itself. :v:

It's part of why I was laughing my rear end off at the "4e is too much like WoW!", since I remember way too much complaining on assorted internet hangouts about 3e being too much like Diablo when that was new.

But yeah, "This edition is too much like <current popular video game>!!" has been going on since basically the start of the hobby and it's always just as meaningless.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 06:44

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

My favorite is the hand-wringing over attribute scores increasing at certain levels.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 06:54

Dr. Quarex: Apr 18, 2003; I'M A BIG DORK WHO POSTS TOO MUCH ABOUT CONVENTIONS LOOK AT THIS

TOVA TOVA TOVA

Asimo posted:

But yeah, "This edition is too much like <current popular video game>!!" has been going on since basically the start of the hobby and it's always just as meaningless.

"Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is too much like dnd on Plato!"

"The brown box is too much like Pong!"

I mean...each new edition probably WAS inspired in some vague sense by popular computer games of the era. But if Rogue had something valuable to add to Dungeons & Dragons, then hey, go for it! ...not that I can think of what that would have been, given that "blindly running into a dungeon and eking out survival by any means necessary and then abruptly dying" sounds like Original Dungeons & Dragons already to me.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 07:23

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

There was like, one sentence somewhere in ad&d about sipping an unidentified potion to try and figure out what it was, and that notion exploded among all of the players I knew, to the point that we were keeping extensive notes and knew which vague descriptions of "feeling a bit lightheaded" etc. mapped to which potions (levitation in that case). So the first time I downloaded Rogue off a BBS and discovered you couldn't sip potions, you just had to [q]uaff them and live with the full blown results (and a vague description, lol) I was like, "pfff, videogames."

That was in 1992, though, so I may have been late to the Rogue party.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 09:45

Ignite Memories: Feb 27, 2005

I remember sipping a potion in kyrandia and writing down "it tastes like alfalfa", and then saving because i'm a huge loving retard that doesn't understand how much westwood hates me.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 15:25

GrizzlyCow: May 30, 2011

Leperflesh posted:

I have always made it a point of liberally salting my D&D settings with non-hostile creatures, both mundane and exotic.

Flumphs. Wasn't that their whole deal, being exotic but nonthreatening monsters?

# ? Feb 27, 2016 20:05

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

On a similar note I recall Magic's sixth edition, released in 1999, being dubbed "Pok�magic" on usenet forums by the usual haters.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 22:54

Nuns with Guns: Jul 23, 2010; It's fine.
Don't worry about it.

Maxwell Lord posted:

On a similar note I recall Magic's sixth edition, released in 1999, being dubbed "Pok�magic" on usenet forums by the usual haters.

M10 caused massive Magic grog meltdowns too

"Ublublublub they did away with mana burn and the combat stack. They're dumbing this game down for kids!!!"
:qqsay:

Nuns with Guns fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Feb 27, 2016

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:01

Pulsedragon: Aug 5, 2013

Nuns with Guns posted:

M10 caused massive Magic grog meltdowns too

"Ublublublub they did away with mana burn and the combat stack. They're dumbing this game down for kids!!!"

I was a little annoyed because I had a super-casual deck that needed the combat stack, but when I thought about it, it made perfect sense, because it doesn't really make sense to play whitemane lion several times in the same turn to kill a dude.

# ? Feb 27, 2016 23:22

JackMann: Aug 11, 2010; Secure. Contain. Protect.; Fallen Rib

GrizzlyCow posted:

Flumphs. Wasn't that their whole deal, being exotic but nonthreatening monsters?

That and being generally awesome.

I mean, I hate all sorts of things about 5th, but one thing I can't hate is that they made flumphs core. As well they deserve to be.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 10:09

Kurieg: Jul 19, 2012; RIP Lutri: 5/19/20-4/2/20

Nuns with Guns posted:

M10 caused massive Magic grog meltdowns too

"Ublublublub they did away with mana burn and the combat stack. They're dumbing this game down for kids!!!"

There's a lot of older cards that got made next to worthless because their entire way of functioning was designed around Damage going on the stack, but all cards going forward were made with the more proper rules interpretation.

More confusing is leaving shortly after Kamigawa block (gently caress you Splice onto Arcane) and coming back in Innistrad and having my opponent stare at me blank eyed when I talked about the damage stack, and the judge patting me on the back like I was some lost treasure(but still wrong).

# ? Feb 28, 2016 16:13

MalcolmSheppard: Jun 24, 2012; MATTHEW 7:20

Maxwell Lord posted:

Nowadays what few hex and counter wargames get published tend to be very hardcore groggy simulations- nobody's printing Tactics or Kriegspiel, they've sort of accepted their fate as a niche. Wargaming now more or less means miniatures wargaming, which is fine but limits some ideas based on scale (and tends to be less about terrain because you end up making the battlefield yourself.) Board games frequently explore weird concepts, but the standard for components and art there are high enough that there's no point trying to do it on the cheap.

It's a weird little category of gaming that's fallen by the wayside and I'm not sure how it can be revisited.

Board wargaming is very much a thing, but computer games hit it pretty drat hard. Nowadays you get company-based crowdfunding, where if X customers order, it comes out, and they hand out draft rules and such along the way. See: http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTP500Details.aspx

# ? Feb 28, 2016 18:12

MalcolmSheppard: Jun 24, 2012; MATTHEW 7:20

Slimnoid posted:

That's likely because Basic "lost" the "war" between it and AD&D. This is despite Basic selling something like a million copies at its high point, and introducing a ton of people to D&D.

It's telling that 2e just built upon AD&D and did away with the easy-to-learn Red Box material in lieu of overly-complicated rules.

Actually, after AD&D2 was released D&D was given a new 5-level basic set and the Rules Cyclopedia But it was always going to be about AD&D because D&D existed as a separate game as part of the legal wrangling with Arneson.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 18:18

Maxwell Lord: Dec 12, 2008; I am drowning.
There is no sign of land.
You are coming down with me, hand in unlovable hand.

And I hope you die.

I hope we both die.; Grimey Drawer

MalcolmSheppard posted:

Board wargaming is very much a thing, but computer games hit it pretty drat hard. Nowadays you get company-based crowdfunding, where if X customers order, it comes out, and they hand out draft rules and such along the way. See: http://www.gmtgames.com/t-GMTP500Details.aspx

Like I said, though, there's not a lot of introductory or easy stuff there, they're catering to the hardcore that's left.

(I also wish computer wargames weren't all exclusively 4x "build and expand" type stuff, but that's another issue.)

# ? Feb 28, 2016 18:55

Halloween Jack: Sep 12, 2003; I WILL CUT OFF BOTH OF MY ARMS BEFORE I VOTE FOR ANYONE THAT IS MORE POPULAR THAN BERNIE!!!!!

MalcolmSheppard posted:

Actually, after AD&D2 was released D&D was given a new 5-level basic set and the Rules Cyclopedia But it was always going to be about AD&D because D&D existed as a separate game as part of the legal wrangling with Arneson.

I don't see how what Slimnoid said doesn't still hold true. The Cyclopedia, while an excellent compendium, was the last gasp of the Basic product line. The Black Box was a replacement for Basic and solely intended as an introduction to AD&D.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 20:10

ProfessorCirno: Feb 17, 2011; The strongest! The smartest!
The rightest!

Slimnoid posted:

That's likely because Basic "lost" the "war" between it and AD&D. This is despite Basic selling something like a million copies at its high point, and introducing a ton of people to D&D.

It's telling that 2e just built upon AD&D and did away with the easy-to-learn Red Box material in lieu of overly-complicated rules.

D&D has always hired D&D fans to make D&D. It's just that they almost exclusively ended up hiring AD&D fans.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 21:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 22:57

LatwPIAT: Jun 6, 2011

ProfessorCirno posted:

D&D has always hired D&D fans to make D&D. It's just that they almost exclusively ended up hiring AD&D fans.

Probably because if you're devoted enough to seek out a job developing for your favourite game-license, you're probably deeply interested in said license and by extension, someone who has devoted the time necessary to learn to play with the Advanced rules.

# ? Feb 28, 2016 21:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > TG As An Industry - Past, Present, Future

«‹›364 »