They'll look like this, without the band on the bottom.
Pictures (https://twitter.com/#!/chattydm/status/163314026477133824/photo/1)
The text is from an archive in Wisconsin, with just the advertisements for old addresses at the back changed.
They're 'looking at' their back catalog, in terms of reprints.
If someone posted this stuff here before me, lemme know. I'll replace this with a funny picture of a cat, or something.
Hm. That might just be a mockup as well.
Look rather...tasteless. But anyhow, good they are back in print.
Interesting combo of the 1e and 3e covers. At least they didn't use the first printing 1e covers, those were God-awful.
Quote from: danbuter;510179Interesting combo of the 1e and 3e covers. At least they didn't use the first printing 1e covers, those were God-awful.
I certainly can understand not liking the original 1e
Monster Manual cover (I'm not a fan myself), but the original 1e cover of the
Player's Handbook by Dave Trampier is without parallel in its sublime excellence and representation of the
essence of AD&D.
I also very much like the original
Dungeon Master's Guide cover, but can understand why some people don't.
Quote from: Kaldric;510167They'll look like this, without the band on the bottom.
Pictures (https://twitter.com/#!/chattydm/status/163314026477133824/photo/1)
The text is from an archive in Wisconsin, with just the advertisements for old addresses at the back changed.
They're 'looking at' their back catalog, in terms of reprints.
If someone posted this stuff here before me, lemme know. I'll replace this with a funny picture of a cat, or something.
It looks like the limited edition covers will keep a small part of the original covers (the thieves on the idol from the PHB, and part of the Efreet from DMG).
I can't make out the MM at all...
Quote from: Akrasia;510211I can't make out the MM at all...
It is the red dragon from the 1e Monster Manual first printing.
Quote from: Akrasia;510211It looks like the limited edition covers will keep a small part of the original covers (the thieves on the idol from the PHB, and part of the Efreet from DMG).
I can't make out the MM at all...
on my forum (http://www.thedelversdungeon.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=961&p=7397#p7397) there are two images; the monster manual cover is a tight cropping of the 1e MM red dragon.
Disliking the 1e MM cover is fine; even Sutherland thought it looked terrible but the PHB and DMG are great.
They dont look that bad though i hope thats a leatherette brown cover and not just a brown leather effect print as the reprints deserve a decent cover if they're limited editions.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;510214They dont look that bad though i hope thats a leatherette brown cover and not just a brown leather effect print as the reprints deserve a decent cover if they're limited editions.
Yeah, some high gloss paper, cockroach-wing-colored mess isn't really what I want in my AD&D reprints, thanks. I have some 3e books already.
I like them. Nicely respectful of the old covers whilst sidestepping any issues with them.
They look good. This approach ticks the boxes for me.
I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;510240I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.
Well technically it's not "Advanced" compared to 3rd and 4th ed, in both senses, I mean, in terms of the complexity of the system and in historical terms as well. In fact, or rather, it's 3rd ed that should have been called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd edition" and 4e that should have been called "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 4th edition". That's what the 3 and 4 actually mean: they succeeded AD&D 2nd edition, in fact.
So I can understand the idea of just dropping the "Advanced", following that logic.
Quote from: Benoist;510244So I can understand the idea of just dropping the "Advanced", following that logic.
Ben I'm not picking on you here but by that logic Ballentine could drop the "Lord" part of
Lord of the Rings I mean because really by this time so many people have read it that the question of
who is the "Lord" is really not so clear cut; Sauron, of course, made the Ring and Gandalf cautions Merry and Pippin at the Grey Council in Rivendell when they say "Make way for Frodo, Lord of the Ring!" that there's only
one "Lord of the Rings". I mean, Bilbo had it for fifty, sixty years and was it's master, but Gollum had it for an entire
age, then Frodo and indeed
Sam for a short period; Galadriel wears a Ring, as does Gandalf. So why not just call it
...Of the Ring? Really clears things up, yeah?
Oh wait, I know why!
BECAUSE IT ISN'T THE NAME THE FUCKING AUTHOR GAVE THE FUCKING BOOK.
(I am not yelling at you, it just grinds my damn gears is all.)
Oh I get why it gets in your crotch I do. Heck, I'd prefer to see the "Advanced" on here too!
It's part of the mystique of the game, after all.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;510240I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.
:boohoo: Big deal...
Quote from: thedungeondelver;510240I don't like the fact that they extirpated "Advanced" from the cover.
It's a smart marketing move.
Gets the grandpas to own a book on their shelf with modern WotC branding on the cover. Infiltrates product identity into their brain space where it will sit all glossy and shiny next to their dusty TSR stuff.
Once granny opens the book, there will be plenty of AD&D references if the game is an actual reprint.
They've apparently scanned the interiors from media they pulled out of an archive in Wisconsin, so one would assume they'd be unchanged.
Cool. Kinda would've liked the original preserved in full and the back cover -- or inside covers -- a new imagining of the originals from a different perspective, a la that 2e (isometric?) piece where the thieves are trying to steal the idol's eye gem. But these are good.
Im hoping there will be some sort of dedication to Gygax in the front of the book somewhere aswell alongside details to donate to the gygax fund should people feel like donating more.
I do not expect, but hope that they clean up the interior of the book. I thought 1st Edition was pretty darn confusing with how it explained the rules; scattered and in an illogical sequence. And the typos...
I love the game, but it was written assuming everyone would sit down and read it front to back, and that is how you would understand the rules. As much as I appreciate its look - two columns of raw text extending almost zine-like to the utmost terminus of the page, ignoring all borders in-between, the information architecture is beguiling.
//Panjumanju
Covers have been updated on the WotC website:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000
Little extra detailing to frame the centerpiece... overall looks good.
I emailed Nobleknight about the books earlier so i'll let you know what they say about international orders once they reply.
You'll note the "Advanced" part of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" is back on the cover, too. :)
WoahDamn, $45 for the DMG?
...still....
Yeah, prolly buy it.
Prices are actually on par with the originals if you account for the inflation etc.
Yah, well, brain still recoils at $45 no matter what the conversion rate is. :P
RPG books are just getting too rich for me. When books are coming out at $60-80 for a single work, and sets for upwards of $120+, I start playing more and more old school works culled for cheap on the internet.
Quote from: J Arcane;513649RPG books are just getting too rich for me. When books are coming out at $60-80 for a single work, and sets for upwards of $120+, I start playing more and more old school works culled for cheap on the internet.
Same here. I occasionally go through second handed bookstores, and picking up old rpg books for $3 to $5 each. Though I probably won't end up using them in a game, anytime soon.
I think in this case the books are more than worth the prices listed due to the fact part of that cost goes to the Gygax fund so it's not entirely going into hasbro's coffers, also its the first time the books have been back in print in years so will be a chance to pick up pristine copies of the books again outside of very lucky wins on ebay.
Quote from: Benoist;513577Covers have been updated on the WotC website:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000
Looks lovely.
RPGPundit
Well i got a reply from nobleknight:
Hello,
We will indeed be stocking copies of the reissues. Lots and lots
of copies. :)
We are not aware of any restrictions that Wizards of the Coast is placing on
shipping these books outside of the country, so as far as we currently know,
these will be available to ship internationally.
If you have any other questions, please feel free to let me know.
Best regards,
So the answer to will nobleknight be shipping copies worldwide is yup :)
I notice that now WotC is calling the books "premium" which leaves the door open for a general "non-premium" release when they sell out. I think unless someone decides they risk cannibalizing 5e sales, there will be a general release.
Well, I won't say that those books are cheap, but they aren't that expensive when compared to textbooks. I'm a teacher and our intro physics text costs my students $210 new. (I encourage them to buy used.)
Quote from: finarvyn;513888Well, I won't say that those books are cheap, but they aren't that expensive when compared to textbooks. I'm a teacher and our intro physics text costs my students $210 new. (I encourage them to buy used.)
I'm a history prof, and our book costs $120 new, $75 used.
I'm totally buying all three D&D books...
$35 each isn't any more than the 4e corebooks go for. More than the Essentials books but those are tiny.
Again, whether or not we get a "Non-premium" will depend immensely on the perceived level of success that these manuals get sales-wise.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Benoist;513577Covers have been updated on the WotC website:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/02410000
Even Sutherland's 'cardiac-arrest-in-mid-flight' red dragon looks nice!
Pity about the first sentence of the blurb:
QuoteIn 1974, the world changed forever when Gary Gygax introduced the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.
Dave Arneson written out of history yet again. :(
Quote from: Akrasia;514350Dave Arneson written out of history yet again. :(
Gary's laughing in his grave, since they hated each other.
Also arneson had moved on by the time AD&D came along so you cant blame wotc for not mentioning the guy since he had nothing to do with the books being reprinted. I did notice something whilst looking through my DMG earlier though that wotc are gonna need to remove, on one of the earlier pages is a paragraph about dragon and white dwarf magazines being invaluable resources for the dm to use for extra information and such then the address for tsr in lake geneva is given for a place to contact for more info so they may need to edit that part out along with the rpga stuff at the back.
I'd gladly pay a bit more for DMG printed in a slightly larger font.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;514358Also arneson had moved on by the time AD&D came along so you cant blame wotc for not mentioning the guy since he had nothing to do with the books being reprinted. I did notice something whilst looking through my DMG earlier though that wotc are gonna need to remove, on one of the earlier pages is a paragraph about dragon and white dwarf magazines being invaluable resources for the dm to use for extra information and such then the address for tsr in lake geneva is given for a place to contact for more info so they may need to edit that part out along with the rpga stuff at the back.
Call me old fashioned, call me a fool but I think they can leave that stuff in place. I hardly think anyone's going to go "Oh hey neat...!" Also, there's the "Sixguns & Sorcery" and "Mutants & Magic" sections that refer to games no longer in print (Boot Hill, Gamma World - at least not in any form someone using the AD&D rules as their primary set would recognize), so should those go? And the mentions of the Nycadaemon and Mezzodaemon. Those are in the "D" series of modules (well, with stats that fit AD&D), but I believe they should be left. Don't lets paint fig leaves on Adam. (I know you yourself aren't saying it will happen - I just hope it doesn't.)
Mezzo and nyca daemons were reprinted in other monster books though so no sense removing mention of those, as for the boot hill and gamma world references they should stay since they're tied into sections that would require abit of work to edit them from. The bit im saying they should remove is more because of the address and mention of white dwarf as reference material since neither are valid anymore(heck im not that sure white dwarf was even that valid as a resource tool back in the mid 80's when the reprinted versions of the books were done) kinda like the rpga stuff they plan to remove is down to relevancy and containing old addresses and such.
In other news Nobleknight has just emailed me again to let me know that they are willing to hold back copies of the books for people who request copies beforehand for upto 10 days after they get stock.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;514364Mezzo and nyca daemons were reprinted in other monster books though so no sense removing mention of those, as for the boot hill and gamma world references they should stay since they're tied into sections that would require abit of work to edit them from. The bit im saying they should remove is more because of the address and mention of white dwarf as reference material since neither are valid anymore(heck im not that sure white dwarf was even that valid as a resource tool back in the mid 80's when the reprinted versions of the books were done) kinda like the rpga stuff they plan to remove is down to relevancy and containing old addresses and such.
Right but the reprints of the Mezzodaemon and Nycadaemon for 1e are unavailable except via used channels... and issues of White Dwarf with AD&D-supporting stuff are still available through the same channels.
I'm just afraid of a slippery slope type thing going on. Hey let's remove this, hey let's remove that and suddenly you've got people editing for "clarity" and "intent" and it's not a reprint, it's...something else.
QuoteIn other news Nobleknight has just emailed me again to let me know that they are willing to hold back copies of the books for people who request copies beforehand for upto 10 days after they get stock.
Good news indeed.
Grab a fiend folio for about $10 and there in there so no problems, theres a ton of copies of that book on ebay these days and most are in neigh on perfect condition.
The FF is everywhere. There's a used bookstore about an hour from my place that has like a dozen copies. As an aside, recently, I bought an efreet covered DMG for 7$ and the Moldvay Basic book for 5$.
As a further aside, I do believe that Moldvay may be my favorite presentation of D&D. Unlike many of the others, it was written in English.
Its true; Arneson had fuck all to do with AD&D.
RPGPundit
Quote from: thedungeondelver;514362Call me old fashioned, call me a fool but I think they can leave that stuff in place. I hardly think anyone's going to go "Oh hey neat...!" Also, there's the "Sixguns & Sorcery" and "Mutants & Magic" sections that refer to games no longer in print (Boot Hill, Gamma World - at least not in any form someone using the AD&D rules as their primary set would recognize), so should those go? And the mentions of the Nycadaemon and Mezzodaemon. Those are in the "D" series of modules (well, with stats that fit AD&D), but I believe they should be left. Don't lets paint fig leaves on Adam. (I know you yourself aren't saying it will happen - I just hope it doesn't.)
These books are a piece of gaming history, so they should be reprinted in full IMO. However explainatory footnotes would be an easy way to deal with issues like this with the original text.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;514358Also arneson had moved on by the time AD&D came along so you cant blame wotc for not mentioning the guy since he had nothing to do with the books being reprinted.
Of course I can blame them. Because they didn't limit their comments to AD&D: They gave Gygax sole credit for what was published in 1974.
Didnt arneson give up any rights to be listed as a creator of D&D in the early 80's though for a nice settlement? if so theres your answer.
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;514719Didnt arneson give up any rights to be listed as a creator of D&D in the early 80's though for a nice settlement? if so theres your answer.
Answer for what? Gygax gave up all his rights in D&D, too.
Quote from: RPGPundit;514706Its true; Arneson had fuck all to do with AD&D.
RPGPundit
And if the blurb had been restricted to AD&D, then there would be no problem.
But it gives Gygax exclusive credit for the version of D&D published in
1974.
Reading comprehension is important! :pundit: