PlanetADnD.com

Thanks for the refresher on the timeline. Once again, I submit you might be correct in assuming Paizo are now the ones playing 'catch-up" and get some folks back in their fold, as it were. But in your haste to make your point, you failed to see mine. A return to a more classical feel. I submit, why learn a new system to give you a nostalgic feeling when you can still play the original that provides that feeling without having to take out a loan to buy new books and accessories? I also note you still have 2nd Edition listed as your favorite system but you'r pretty stoutly backing 5th Edition in our discussions.

Billy_Buttcheese wrote:I submit, why learn a new system to give you a nostalgic feeling when you can still play the original that provides that feeling without having to take out a loan to buy new books and accessories?

Lots of possible reasons, I'd say.

First of all, not everyone still has their old books. A lot of people packed them up and lost them, or sold them, and stopped playing the game for many years and are now just returning to it. In that case, it would probably be simpler to buy new books than trying to track down old, out of print ones on eBay. (My 2E DMG's spine is currently held together with duct tape and I have to open it carefully, or several loose pages will fly out, due to years of wear and tear, just as an example. I've had to replace my 2E PHB twice now, and each time it's harder to find a good, intact copy.)

Second of all, it's increasingly difficult to find good players who know or are interested in learning the old editions. In my own games, I have several players who were not even born yet when 2E was released (and even one who was not born yet when 3E was released!). When I put out the call I'm looking for players for one of my 2E games, if I'm really lucky, I'll find just enough candidates to fill four spots. If I do the same for a 5E game, I have to go through a score or more possible candidates and pick out the best ones.

Third, it's kind of nice to be part of the main fandom again. For the past 20 years or so, I haven't really been part of 'the conversation.' Having learned 5E and started playing it, when other people talk about it, I'm not left feeling confused or left out. I can get excited when they announce new modules or books are being released. I can enjoy watching great game streams like Teamfourstar's At the Table or GameGrump's Dragons and Places. It's nice when I meet someone who also plays D&D, we can talk about it, instead of my having to explain that, no, I'm only familiar with a version of it that died out 20+ years ago, sorry.

And fourth, 5E may have a sort of nostalgic feel to it, in some ways, but it is very much a new school game. It changes things, and adds things, and removes things, and some people like that. Sometimes nostalgia is ruined by reality. It's like...I was very big into Thundercats when I was a kid. But when I go back and watch it now, to feel nostalgic, I'm reminded by the fact that, in all honesty, it wasn't a very good show. I imagine there are those who would go back to 1E/2E, but then are like, "Ugh...I forgot about level limits. Or alignment languages. Or class/race restrictions." Or whatever old 'flaws' one might have found in the old versions (your mileage may vary, of course; some people like those things). So they can play 5E instead, and have that nostalgia feeling, but without all the stuff they didn't like. (Although of course, 5E has its own flaws, different from 1E/2E.)

But really, most of the 5E players I know are too young to feel any nostalgia from playing 5E. They consider 3E to be an 'old school' game (a comment that never fails to cause my eye to twitch). Honestly, I'm not even sure the old school elements of 5E were really included to appeal to old schoolers, so much as they were included to make the game simpler and thus, more inclusive and easier to learn for newbies.

Billy_Buttcheese wrote:I also note you still have 2nd Edition listed as your favorite system but you'r pretty stoutly backing 5th Edition in our discussions.

And? There's no contradiction. I still prefer 2E (by which I mean, my personal heavily house-ruled version of 2E that's barely recognizable as such). But I like 5E, too.

JadedDM wrote:

Original 1974-1977 (3 years)
1st Edition 1977-1989 (12 years)
2nd Edition 1989-1995 (6 years)
3rd Edition 2000-2008 (8 years)
4th Edition 2008-2010 (2 years)
5th Edition 2014-2018 (4 years and counting, with planned material for the rest of this year and 2019, at least)

That's some interesting math there. 2nd Edition was in print from 1989 until 2000, when 3E was released. That's 11 years, not 6.

So both 1E and 2E lasted over a decade each, and together they lasted longer than 3E. 3.5E, 4E, and 5E COMBINED (23 years vs. 18 years). Undoubtedly, 6E will be out within the next couple of years, so that means 1E and 2E will have lasted as long as 3E thru 6E.

Basic D&D lasted from 1974 until 1994 with numerous revisions, but still the same game for 20 years.

Bottom line, these new editions have as pre-programmed shelf life. 5E was never intended to last 10 or 12 years. Gotta start from scratch and sucker all the lemmings into buying all the rulebooks all over again in a few years!

JadedDM wrtoe:

First of all, not everyone still has their old books. A lot of people packed them up and lost them, or sold them, and stopped playing the game for many years and are now just returning to it. In that case, it would probably be simpler to buy new books than trying to track down old, out of print ones on eBay.

Oh please! Thats' nonsense. Any fool with a half-decent internet connection and a couple of hours to spare can download virtually the entire 1E and 2E inventory online for free. Even the more rare, expensive stuff. Hell, for the price of having an internet connection for 1 day, you can own it all. There's simply no need to spend gazillions of dollars online buying it on ebay. If someone wants to recover all his old 1E and 2E material, simply Google: "[Product name] pdf" and viola! At your fingertips!

Second of all, it's increasingly difficult to find good players who know or are interested in learning the old editions.

Again, nonsense. The problem is that people are looking in the wrong places. You can't go to gaming store which is frequented by Edition-junkies who simply have to play the latest thing. That's not where you're going to find players for older editions.

When I put out the call I'm looking for players for one of my 2E games, if I'm really lucky, I'll find just enough candidates to fill four spots.

And what's wrong with 4 players?

Third, it's kind of nice to be part of the main fandom again.

Well only if you lower your standards to be a fan of garbage. I'm not worried about being a faithful fanboy, and I know a lot of other players and DMs who aren't either.

For the past 20 years or so, I haven't really been part of 'the conversation.' Having learned 5E and started playing it, when other people talk about it, I'm not left feeling confused or left out

There are a good half dozen or more internet forums dedicated to old school AD&D. I've never had a problem finding more conversation than I could possibly keep up with online.

And fourth, 5E may have a sort of nostalgic feel to it, in some ways, but it is very much a new school game.

Nostalgia - a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.

How can it be nostalgic if it's still in print?

I imagine there are those who would go back to 1E/2E, but then are like, "Ugh...I forgot about level limits. Or alignment languages. Or class/race restrictions." Or whatever old 'flaws' one might have found in the old versions (your mileage may vary, of course; some people like those things). So they can play 5E instead, and have that nostalgia feeling, but without all the stuff they didn't like. (Although of course, 5E has its own flaws, different from 1E/2E.)

Ah, I see. They're not creative or intelligent enough to simply ignore certain rules they don't like? They have to buy hundreds of dollars on new books to achieve what they can with less effort than blinking? That makes a lot of sense. Not.

These arguments make no sense, I'm afraid.

Billy_Buttcheese wrote:

A return to a more classical feel. I submit, why learn a new system to give you a nostalgic feeling when you can still play the original that provides that feeling without having to take out a loan to buy new books and accessories?

Exactly! As I said in my other reply, anyone who had the old 1E/2E material can easily go online and have virtually every product ever put out by TSR for 1E and 2E in a matter of hours. I've never understood that burning desire some people have to reinvent the wheel. Especially when that reinvention involves a lowering of quality from the original. There's simply no excuse for having to buy new editions.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:That's some interesting math there. 2nd Edition was in print from 1989 until 2000, when 3E was released. That's 11 years, not 6.

No new material was released for 2e after 1995, which is when TSR went bankrupt. Between 1995 and 2000, D&D was essentially dead. That's why I didn't include it.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Oh please! Thats' nonsense. Any fool with a half-decent internet connection and a couple of hours to spare can download virtually the entire 1E and 2E inventory online for free.

Sure, but as Garhkal pointed out earlier in the thread:

garhkal wrote:And some just prefer the Tactile sensation of OWNING a physical book, vs having a PDF.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Again, nonsense. The problem is that people are looking in the wrong places. You can't go to gaming store which is frequented by Edition-junkies who simply have to play the latest thing. That's not where you're going to find players for older editions.

I can't speak to that, as I haven't stepped foot into a gaming store since I was a kid. I recruit online, as all my games are online.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:And what's wrong with 4 players?

Nothing. You misunderstood what I said. I said, if I was really lucky, I would get 4 players. Usually, I'd get less.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:I've never had a problem finding more conversation than I could possibly keep up with online.

Eventually, though, you just get to the point where you're having the same conversations, over and over again. There's nothing new to talk about.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Nostalgia - a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.

How can it be nostalgic if it's still in print?

It invokes a sense of nostalgia for old school gaming, which is NOT still in print.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Ah, I see. They're not creative or intelligent enough to simply ignore certain rules they don't like? They have to buy hundreds of dollars on new books to achieve what they can with less effort than blinking? That makes a lot of sense. Not.

If you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as simply being stupid, there's nothing to discuss with you. You have nothing of value to add to this conversation, so move on.

JadedDM wrote:

No new material was released for 2e after 1995, which is when TSR went bankrupt. Between 1995 and 2000, D&D was essentially dead. That's why I didn't include it.

First, 2E material (both old and new) was available in stores and in print up until 2000. Second, you're wrong (as usual) when it comes to facts about older editions. TSR did not stop publishing new material in 1995. For example...

Den of Thieves - 1996

Return to the Tomb of Horrors - 1998

College of Wizardry - 1998

Warriors of Heaven - 1999

Bastion of Faith - 1999

Guide to Hell - 1999

Priest's Spell Compendium, Vol. 1 & 2 - 1999

Vortex of Madness - 2000

Priest's Spell Compendium, Vol. 3 - 2000

Die, Vecna, Die - 2000

And I can go on and on and on with new releases between 1995 and 2000 (I'm not about to research and look up everything published over the course of 5 whole years in order to disprove an absurd claim - the examples I gave will suffice).

Sure, but as Garhkal pointed out earlier in the thread:
garhkal wrote:
And some just prefer the Tactile sensation of OWNING a physical book, vs having a PDF.

Poor excuse. I'm one of those people who far prefer the feel of paper, but if I had a choice between shelling out tons of money for a new, inferior edition (or even the good, original editions) vs. simply going online and getting everything free, it's a no-brainer. Buy just the ones you really want to have a paper copy of. And many of them are cheap online. Bottom line, you don't need the actual books to play. You can get the PDF to just about everything.

I can't speak to that, as I haven't stepped foot into a gaming store since I was a kid. I recruit online, as all my games are online.

In that case, you need to recruit at online sources where old school gamers are. It's simple logic really.

Nothing. You misunderstood what I said. I said, if I was really lucky, I would get 4 players. Usually, I'd get less.

Three players and a DM makes a fine game. I prefer more, but 3 is still good. Again, you have to know where to find players.

Eventually, though, you just get to the point where you're having the same conversations, over and over again. There's nothing new to talk about.

Funny how I always seem to find new discussions online about editions I've been playing and discussing for 35+ years. Besides, I'm really not interested in discussing my paladin/assassin/druid half-faerie/half-dragon character with other people who think that's actually "cool".

It invokes a sense of nostalgia for old school gaming, which is NOT still in print.

Not being in print at stores is an irrelevant fact and a poor excuse. Anyone can get most of the material free online or for a song at used books stores or online.

If you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as simply being stupid, there's nothing to discuss with you. You have nothing of value to add to this conversation, so move on.

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me stupid. I am correcting people who can't get their facts straight (for example, people who claim TSR/WOTC didn't publish anything after 1995 ). And also pointing out the absurdity of the arguments being presented. No one who wishes to play 1E/2E has any excuse not to, because both editions are there for the taking for free, in almost their entirety. 23 years of material for the cost of a working internet connection and a couple of hours of work.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:First, 2E material (both old and new) was available in stores and in print up until 2000. Second, you're wrong (as usual) when it comes to facts about older editions. TSR did not stop publishing new material in 1995.

Alright, my mistake. But there's no reason to be an ass about it.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Poor excuse.

It's not an excuse, it's a preference.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:In that case, you need to recruit at online sources where old school gamers are. It's simple logic really.

I do that. It's still hard to find people. Especially people who aren't assholes and who don't throw a temper tantrum when they realize I've house-ruled the game.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Three players and a DM makes a fine game. I prefer more, but 3 is still good. Again, you have to know where to find players.

I feel like you're missing my original point, which is that it's more difficult to find people to play 2E than it is to find people to play 5E. If I put out a call for 2E players, I don't get very many, sometimes not even enough to fill out a party. If I put out a call for players in a 5E game, I get so many that I have to pick and choose who gets in or not.

I never said it's impossible to find 2E players, or that there are no 2E players to be found. Just that it is, overall speaking, more difficult to find good 2E players than it is to find good 5E players.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Not being in print at stores is an irrelevant fact and a poor excuse.

Again, it's not an excuse. It's a preference.

You get that right? You seem to act as if the only reason anyone can play 5E is if they can justify it. Like you are trying to 'prove' someone else's preferences are wrong. These preferences don't apply to you, and that's fine, but not everyone is like you.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me stupid.

You literally just did. You said:

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:Ah, I see. They're not creative or intelligent enough to simply ignore certain rules they don't like? They have to buy hundreds of dollars on new books to achieve what they can with less effort than blinking? That makes a lot of sense. Not.

"Not creative or intelligent enough" or in other words, "less smart than you."

JadedDM wrote:

Alright, my mistake. But there's no reason to be an ass about it.

I wasn't being an ass about it. I just hate it when people throw out demonstrably untrue arguments. Especially when those arguments are so poorly researched, if at all.

It's not an excuse, it's a preference.

I agree, it's a preference (and one I share), but it's not an excuse not to play. If your goal is to collect paper editions of AD&D material, that's one thing. But if your goal is to play the game, there is no excuse about paper copies. It's all there in PDF, which is all you need to play. You don't need paper books to play the game.

I do that. It's still hard to find people. Especially people who aren't assholes and who don't throw a temper tantrum when they realize I've house-ruled the game.

This is one reason I only try to recruit from amongst friends and colleagues and people I know. It knocks off a lot of the childishness.

I feel like you're missing my original point, which is that it's more difficult to find people to play 2E than it is to find people to play 5E. If I put out a call for 2E players, I don't get very many, sometimes not even enough to fill out a party. If I put out a call for players in a 5E game, I get so many that I have to pick and choose who gets in or not.

I never said it's impossible to find 2E players, or that there are no 2E players to be found. Just that it is, overall speaking, more difficult to find good 2E players than it is to find good 5E players.

I'd agree, although that doesn't mean it's hard to get a 1E or 2E group together. It just takes looking in the right places for the right people.

Again, it's not an excuse. It's a preference.

You get that right? You seem to act as if the only reason anyone can play 5E is if they can justify it. Like you are trying to 'prove' someone else's preferences are wrong. These preferences don't apply to you, and that's fine, but not everyone is like you.

You're talking about nostalgia (which is a longing for something from the past) and I'm asking how 5E can have anything to do with nostalgia when it's currently in print. It's like saying: "God I miss the old days when we could text each other". Ummm...texting exists now. You can't have a longing or nostalgia for something that exists in the present. And as I said, any nostalgia for the good old days of 1E and 2E can be satisfied for absolutely no cost. Nostalgia for 1E/2E has nothing to do with 5E or 6E or whatever.

You literally just did. You said:

alaster-Blackcloak wrote:
Ah, I see. They're not creative or intelligent enough to simply ignore certain rules they don't like? They have to buy hundreds of dollars on new books to achieve what they can with less effort than blinking? That makes a lot of sense. Not.

"Not creative or intelligent enough" or in other words, "less smart than you."

You completely and utterly misunderstood that. It was in response to this, posted by you:

I imagine there are those who would go back to 1E/2E, but then are like, "Ugh...I forgot about level limits. Or alignment languages. Or class/race restrictions." Or whatever old 'flaws' one might have found in the old versions (your mileage may vary, of course; some people like those things). So they can play 5E instead, and have that nostalgia feeling, but without all the stuff they didn't like. (Although of course, 5E has its own flaws, different from 1E/2E.)

Notice I ended by reply with the eye-roll emoticon. In other words, what you said was that people want to go back to 2E, but then remember things about it they didn't like, so instead of simply ignoring those few things they don't like (the obvious and simplest solution that most of us have implemented for decades), they should simply buy 5E. I rolled by eyes because it made it sound like you were inferring they were too stupid to simply ignore those rules they didn't like. In other words, what sort of moron needs to buy a whole new edition in order to simply ignore certain rules they didn't like? If we have someone who wants to play 2E but doesn't like level limits, alignment languages, or class/race restrictions, what makes more sense (and would tend to give a higher appearance of intelligence):

1- the person who simply decides "I'm going to ignore the class/race restrictions and level limits, and who the hell ever used alignment languages after all?"

2 - the person who apparently needs to spend hundreds of dollars on new books to accomplish what the guy above did for free in a matter of seconds

You made it sound as if the second option was needed. Also, you didn't see what else I wrote:

Ah, I see. They're not creative or intelligent enough to simply ignore certain rules they don't like? They have to buy hundreds of dollars on new books to achieve what they can with less effort than blinking? That makes a lot of sense. Not.

Those were questions, not statements. I was asking you: "So, they're not smart enough to simply ignore certain rules? They need to buy a new edition? That makes no sense." I think it was obvious that I was questioning how you looked at people who bought a new edition because they didn't like a few rules. You really need to read my posts a bit more closely, because you get a lot of what I write wrong.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:I wasn't being an ass about it.

Yes, you were. You could have just said, "No, that's not correct," then cited the correction. But that wasn't enough, you had to call me "wrong (as usual)" and then take another potshot at me at the end of your post by including "(for example, people who claim TSR/WOTC didn't publish anything after 1995 )." Neither of those was the least bit necessary.

Halaster-Blackcloak wrote:You're talking about nostalgia (which is a longing for something from the past) and I'm asking how 5E can have anything to do with nostalgia when it's currently in print. It's like saying: "God I miss the old days when we could text each other". Ummm...texting exists now. You can't have a longing or nostalgia for something that exists in the present.

I think a better analogy would be saying, "God, I miss the old days when we could write each other actual letters with pen and paper." And we can still do that. There's nothing stopping us from doing so. There's "no excuse" not to. It's just more convenient to text, because that's what everyone does nowadays.

JadedDM wrote:

Yes, you were. You could have just said, "No, that's not correct," then cited the correction. But that wasn't enough, you had to call me "wrong (as usual)" and then take another potshot at me at the end of your post by including "(for example, people who claim TSR/WOTC didn't publish anything after 1995 )." Neither of those was the least bit necessary.

Like I said, I really get intolerant of people when they state things that are untrue and that they should know are untrue. Still don't think that's "being an ass" as much as it is being sarcastic or snarky.

I think a better analogy would be saying, "God, I miss the old days when we could write each other actual letters with pen and paper." And we can still do that. There's nothing stopping us from doing so. There's "no excuse" not to. It's just more convenient to text, because that's what everyone does nowadays.

But either way, the analogy doesn't hold because you can't be nostalgic for 5E since it's still in print and currently being played. It's the current edition. 2E isn't less convenient than 2E the way writing paper letters is less convenient than texting, so the analogy doesn't apply.

JadedDM wrote: (My 2E DMG's spine is currently held together with duct tape and I have to open it carefully, or several loose pages will fly out, due to years of wear and tear, just as an example. I've had to replace my 2E PHB twice now, and each time it's harder to find a good, intact copy.)

I wish I had known that last year. I sold my like new copies of both books to Intelligator. I would have given them to you for just the cost of shipping had I known you then.

I haven't had a problem with my 2E PHBs (I have 3 of the original printings) but my original 2E DMG is the same as yours, pages falling out. At some point I will probably find another.

Meph wrote:I haven't had a problem with my 2E PHBs (I have 3 of the original printings) but my original 2E DMG is the same as yours, pages falling out. At some point I will probably find another.

My OA book's like that. My 1st run 2e phb is like that (the front cover ripped off eventually).. No other books are..

I'm wondering why that happens. A lot of people seem to run into that. I can't recall a book I've had that's fallen apart like that, though. One of my over-used original 2E PHBs is getting loose in a sense of it's not tight but there are no pages falling out. I wonder if it's a storage issue? My house is usually pretty cool, and I keep a pretty consistent temp and humidity level.

Actually, now that I think about it (my memory spurred by Garhkal), my original OA book is like that. The only one. Pages getting loose. The spine is all dried out.

1E Unearthed Arcana is the worst offender I think. I am not sure where it ended up but I had a UA that the spine was crap and the pages falling out. I have a really nice one now and I think I gave my beat up one to a friend. I have a 1E PHB that is separated from the cover but that is strictly due to use most likely. TSR and WOTC have had some QC issues over the years on certain books but I imagine that is the same with any company with such a long print span using different print houses. It's bound to happen.

Meph wrote:1E Unearthed Arcana is the worst offender I think. I am not sure where it ended up but I had a UA that the spine was crap and the pages falling out. I have a really nice one now and I think I gave my beat up one to a friend. I have a 1E PHB that is separated from the cover but that is strictly due to use most likely. TSR and WOTC have had some QC issues over the years on certain books but I imagine that is the same with any company with such a long print span using different print houses. It's bound to happen.

Agreed. This was a known and well-documented issue with this particular book. I bought mine brand new and even though I've always been very careful with it, the binding is loose. No pages are falling out but I have to handle it pretty carefully. I bought a second copy just in case, in spite of the fact I don't use that much out of it.