Knights & Knaves Alehouse

AxeMental wrote:Take a look at the cover of your PH...then open it and start reading. Do you honestly think WOTC could (or would ever) want to try and recreate this?

Yes. (q.v., the faithfully reprinted 1e contents of the silver anniversary boxed set, as well as the faithful pdf versions of the 1e stuff.)

Hell, even if WOTC managed to do a simple restatement like Osric 2, they'd brand it with modernisms and commercialism that would still fall way short of the original books.

So if given the choice between:
- AD&D being given more exposure and more availability, although branded with modernisms and commercialism, OR
- AD&D being in the same festering/dwindling state it is in now...

... you'd rather let it fester & dwindle? Do you refuse to buy your Tide detergent, your Charmin toilet paper, and your Prego spaghetti sauce every time they change their labels to make them more marketable?

And if given the choice between:
- Having new D&D products that contain very few of the elements of old school play, and that contain little respect for the game's roots, OR
- Having new D&D products that start to incorporate more of the elements of old school play ,and that contain more respect for the game's roots...

... you'd choose the former?

People come to WotC's latest version of D&D because it's the market leader; it's the obvious choice when you walk into a game store. If you had the ability to make their experience with the latest version of D&D more like AD&D, would you make that happen?

I think the fear is that they would present AD&D/1e in a light that distorted it so much that it supplanted what little currency it has left. I have to admit, art does make a huge difference to perceptions. The new C&C art direction has left me absolutely cold. I know lots of folks criticised the old stuff for being "hyper realistic", "cheese cake", and not "weird" enough, but I thought it was okay for what it was (a kind of AD&D/3e).

Wizards of the Coast are so changeable in terms of staff and unreliable in terms of product consistency that I do not really trust them with AD&D, though reprints and PDFs are absolutely acceptable and desirable. I can understand the feeling some folks have that we should just ignore them completely and get on with our lives.

On the other hand, I thought that their 4e version of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting was pretty good, in that it followed the Wilderlands of High Fantasy approach to brief detailing of each area, leaving the rest up to the game master.

The question is, do I want to see something like this on a reprint of the AD&D PHB:



As a homage from Exalted for AD&D/1e, I am fine with it. As the front cover of the AD&D PHB, well, I am not too keen...

Guy Fullerton wrote: So if given the choice between:
- AD&D being given more exposure and more availability, although branded with modernisms and commercialism, OR
- AD&D being in the same festering/dwindling state it is in now...

In a word, "yes", because

... you'd rather let it fester & dwindle? Do you refuse to buy your Tide detergent, your Charmin toilet paper, and your Prego spaghetti sauce every time they change their labels to make them more marketable?

Wizbro would never just change the art (which would be bad enough in most cases), but would, undoubtedly, fail to resist tinkering here and there.

Guy Fullerton wrote: And if given the choice between:
- Having new D&D products that contain very few of the elements of old school play, and that contain little respect for the game's roots, OR
- Having new D&D products that start to incorporate more of the elements of old school play ,and that contain more respect for the game's roots...

... you'd choose the former?

The later will never, ever happen as long as Wizbro owns "Dungeons & Dragons" and "D&D" trademarks.

Considering the historical choices made by WoTC, either as a single entity or under the ownership of Hasbro, when it comes to D&D, I am truly perplexed that you have any faith whatsoever in that company.

In the interest of full disclosure, do you mind revealing just how close your relationship with WoTC has been over the years?

Q: "Yes. (q.v., the faithfully reprinted 1e contents of the silver anniversary boxed set, as well as the faithful pdf versions of the 1e stuff.) "

I don't yet have silver hair, and would rather see a low priced boxed set marketed to millions rather then some limited edition run for a bijillion dollars directed at a few collectors. Thats useless in spreading the game, and I'd consider it nothing of value (just a waste of money) when you can get the same books for $5 on ebay.




Q: "So if given the choice between:
- AD&D being given more exposure and more availability, although branded with modernisms and commercialism, OR
- AD&D being in the same festering/dwindling state it is in now..."


Knowing how they'd fuck it up (the best we could hope for would be something far worse then 2E), I'd have to go with your option 2: the dwindling state its in now. Put someone good in charge with taste similar to my own (or most of the regular posters here that "get it") and I'd be all for a newly branded commercialized product (OSRIC 2 would be a great example).

As for art, there's plenty of great fantasy artwork and artists floating around (check out the Hyperboria stuff for instance, or hell the work of Peter Mullen for that matter) but for some unknowable, unfathonable reason WOTC/Hasbro won't go near what we consider "good style". Why? Because they believe their target market to be a bunch of dolts, and perhaps it is. The market of millions that TSR once had with 1E was left intentionally in the dust (for whatever reason), and they have never been targeted again (well, perhaps with the initial pre-3E launch that built up the hype of a return to something closer to the "beginning", which was a bold faced lie (as you see in the artwork once you open the cover).

In any event, until WOTC is ready to produce a product that was to my taste I'd rather they leave the living past alone. Who knows, one day OSRIC may take off in a bigger way (a better chance of that happening then WOTC getting it right).

TheRedPriest wrote:Wizbro would never just change the art (which would be bad enough in most cases), but would, undoubtedly, fail to resist tinkering here and there.

You speak in absolutes that are contradicted by facts. How do you reconcile your statement with the reproductions in the silver anniversary set and the 1e pdfs?

Considering the historical choices made by WoTC, either as a single entity or under the ownership of Hasbro, when it comes to D&D, I am truly perplexed that you have any faith whatsoever in that company.

In the interest of full disclosure, do you mind revealing just how close your relationship with WoTC has been over the years?

Sure. I was the D&D minis net rep from 2003 through early 2007, I was the Star Wars minis net rep for a couple years during that time as well.

I was and still am an outsider, not a WotC employee (I'm a software engineer at a major computer company), though I was under NDA and therefore had inside information and a little bit influence on both those games. My primary responsibilities included answering rules questions on the forums, writing & maintaining the FAQ, writing the DDM judge test, and so on. This work was compensated with product.

During that time, I also judged major tournaments at GenCons, and wrote a number of web articles regarding DDM and SWM, the latter done under a freelancer-type of contract.

I quit those roles under ... less than pleasant circumstances, and I have plenty of reasons to be miffed with WotC and its processes. And at this point in my gaming life, I want *nothing* to do with miniatures of any sort!


But the experience showed me that despite the difficulty in enacting major change within a large corporation (which I also have plenty of experience with in my real job), it *is* possible to foster smaller changes and/or foster changes in individuals' outlooks, especially if I took the initiative and did some of the work myself. I *did* that sort of thing, and it worked.

Hasbro & WotC may be corporations, and it's easy to blame faceless suits for various decisions, but – like any company, large or small – many influential decisions are made by individuals at lower levels of the company, and it *is* possible to influence those individuals. I've done it.

AxeMental wrote:Q: "Yes. (q.v., the faithfully reprinted 1e contents of the silver anniversary boxed set, as well as the faithful pdf versions of the 1e stuff.) "

I don't yet have silver hair, and would rather see a low priced boxed set marketed to millions rather then some limited edition run for a bijillion dollars directed at a few collectors. Thats useless in spreading the game, and I'd consider it nothing of value (just a waste of money) when you can get the same books for $5 on ebay.

The important thing in the above is your acknowledgement that WotC respected the original presentation of those 1e products.

In any event, until WOTC is ready to produce a product that was to my taste I'd rather they leave the living past alone.

That's understandable. (I happen to disagree, but certainly I can respect your viewpoint.)

So how are you going to let them know what's to your taste? Reminder: They're currently asking you to tell them what your tastes are.

Guy Fullerton wrote:

AxeMental wrote:Q: "Yes. (q.v., the faithfully reprinted 1e contents of the silver anniversary boxed set, as well as the faithful pdf versions of the 1e stuff.) "

I don't yet have silver hair, and would rather see a low priced boxed set marketed to millions rather then some limited edition run for a bijillion dollars directed at a few collectors. Thats useless in spreading the game, and I'd consider it nothing of value (just a waste of money) when you can get the same books for $5 on ebay.

The important thing in the above is your acknowledgement that WotC respected the original presentation of those 1e products.

In any event, until WOTC is ready to produce a product that was to my taste I'd rather they leave the living past alone.

That's understandable. (I happen to disagree, but certainly I can respect your viewpoint.)

So how are you going to let them know what's to your taste? Reminder: They're currently asking you to tell them what your tastes are.

Let's not be coy, Guy, we know how big companies' marketing departments work. They're not asking us, they're scraping us off as statistical aberrations. They're asking 4e and potential 4e players (drinkers of the deep 3.5 koolade) what they are going to do to move towards 4e.

thedungeondelver wrote:Let's not be coy, Guy, we know how big companies' marketing departments work. They're not asking us, they're scraping us off as statistical aberrations.

Possibly. I'm willing to "risk" that ("risk" in quotes since there really isn't any risk to taking the survey in my mind) in hopes that some of my thoughtful feedback gets read & understood by as few as just one person. I'm more than happy to try and plant a seed in the back of somebody's mind that could germinate into something cool.

They're asking 4e and potential 4e players (drinkers of the deep 3.5 koolade) what they are going to do to move towards 4e.

You took the survey. You know that's patently untrue. Pray tell, specifically which questions asked that?

Matthew wrote:The new C&C art direction has left me absolutely cold. I know lots of folks criticised the old stuff for being "hyper realistic", "cheese cake", and not "weird" enough, but I thought it was okay for what it was (a kind of AD&D/3e).

Umm.....huh? Maybe I've missed the new artwork (my last purchase was CZ:UW). How has the artwork changed?

Guy, the others are right, this isn't about discovering if 1E should be rereleased, this is about figuring out a way to get people to move over to 4E. It probably means they missed their sales numbers (and are either trying to figure out if their marketing or look was off, or they want to suck in old schoolers). I didn't take the test, but I assure you questions don't have to directly address a subject to be useful (infact many times the most useful questions would seem unrelated to what the true subject is, though I'm fairy certain you already are well aware of this.) "Do you DM" is a far better question then "if you switched over to 4E and were playing on the server, would it bother you that a computer was running the game rather then a real person...not a great example, but that sort of thing).

K I think this [/img]

Keolander wrote: Umm.....huh? Maybe I've missed the new artwork (my last purchase was CZ:UW). How has the artwork changed?

Yeah, it has changed. To be clear, I am not condemning it as "bad", but subjectively I do not much care for these new covers:





They seem to me to be imitative of the D20/4e look that Goodman Games has also taken inspiration from (in order to sell D20/4e compatible product). I will say that the green bordering is a heck of a lot better than the original red versions that were postulated:



I am not suggesting that I loved every cover that went before, but I can say that I liked them well enough, partly because they seemed to have their own "feel" and identity. Of course, some I liked better than others, such as the ones below:





That said, I was not initially a big fan of the pastel colours and it took a while for me to warm up to them. However, I cannot really imagine myself warming up to this new art direction with any great speed. On the other hand, I quite like these covers...



...which obviously take something from the new direction, and it is possible that I am just a moody so and so that prefers less action orientated images.

Some of those covers look like 2E Dragonlance or Ravenloft.

Those newer ones, though, I dunno...they seem like they're morphing into 3E artwork there.

I've got nothing 'gainst scantily-clad womenfolk (or busty elven totty) but if it's just there to attract a hormonal 13 year old with too much allowance funds, then, meh.