MShipley88 wrote:Remember that 1st Edition AD&D had grown into a monster dozen books by the end of the 80's. It was necessary to issue a 2nd edition just to attract more gamers.
MShipley88 wrote: I am surprised that the same love of complexity does not attract older gamers to 3.5. I think the objections to 3.5 are mostly nostalgia for the older version.Mark
MShipley88 wrote: Also, Gary Gygax made an excellent point in an editorial when the coming switch to second edition was first announced: He pointed out that the multiplicity of books and arcane complexity was probably part of what made the game attractive to hard-core gamers.
Celephais wrote:In all truth although I played Basic and Expert D&D I never actually got round to playing Advanced D&D in the early 80s! In about '81 or' 82 I asked my mother for all the 1st edition core rulebooks and got them, but to me part of the fun was actually just reading them. I found them engrossing reading. I did eventually get round to a few games of AD&D in 1986 however, but by then it was harder to find any RPG groups
Plaag wrote:Same here..OD&D is where it was at.I can't seem to fathom why 1'ers dont get it.
dbartman wrote:D&D is still quite popular in my part of the world. Seems like most of the Cons are going strong. There is a different crowd at them though. But that's another thread. I really can't go to the smaller Cons any more. I feel out of place with all of the younger gamers. It's a different world.
dbartman wrote:OD&D is our favorite. 2nd and 3rd edition products are adapted with a little effort. Problem with some of the 2nd edition items is that they were slapped together without a lot of quality control. 3rd edition is considerably better for the most part.