Quote from: James J SkachI seem to have missed those facts. If you just post which number posts they are, I'll go back and look at them again.

You missed the Amazon.com stuff? You've referenced them and posted your own set.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, but saying something like "today's TV consumer's tastes are for large, flat screen plasma screens with HD tuners" and then reviewing a 32" cable-ready color TV as a piece of crap because it's not in line with "today's TV consumer." Which is, I believe, how this entire discussion began, no?

Except the marketplace hasn't really moved significantly away from 32" cable-ready TVs. It clearly has moved away from black and white TVs. So, no, the entire discussion is more about color versus black and white.

Quote from: James J SkachInstead, I'm asking for some sort of proof that "today's RPG consumer" does or does not include a significant representation of people who choose, currently, to play AD&D (and similar games) or at the very least don't see it as a hand drill, washboard, or B&W TV.

Basically, we're standing in a showroom full of color TVs and you're saying, "Now demonstrate that more people prefer color TVs than black and white ones." The proof that you're asking for is that the showroom only has color TVs. It's what producers are producing, retailers are stocking, and consumers are purchasing.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYou missed the Amazon.com stuff? You've referenced them and posted your own set.

Oh..no..I saw that.  It's just not proof of anything. Again, you put up D&D 3.x as the benchmark. I looked at other currently produced games.  It appears as if AD&D (and simlar games) fall somewhere in between.  Which leaves us...where in terms of proof again?

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept the marketplace hasn't really moved significantly away from 32" cable-ready TVs. It clearly has moved away from black and white TVs. So, no, the entire discussion is more about color versus black and white.

Except The market hasn't moved away from AD&D, that's still simply your opinion.  I mean, it's a valid opinion, and I'm willing to agree to it as soon as we can get some solid understanding of "today's RPG consumer" other than opinions.

Quote from: SeanchaiBasically, we're standing in a showroom full of color TVs and you're saying, "Now demonstrate that more people prefer color TVs than black and white ones." The proof that you're asking for is that the showroom only has color TVs. It's what producers are producing, retailers are stocking, and consumers are purchasing.

Only if one agrees with your stipulation that AD&D is a B&W TV.  I'm actually standing in a room full of color TV's and saying, "Tell me again why I should believe that the tastes of today's TV consumer don't include 32-inch-cable-ready Color TV's? Cause I see one there, and there, and there's a few over there, and..."

Alas, it seems will will continue to talk passed each other on this one.

Quote from: James J SkachAlas, it seems will will continue to talk passed each other on this one.

No. You simple won't accept offerings and sales as the proof they are. And not based, I'm afraid, on some objective reasoning, but rather the idea that there's some kind of elitism tied up in measuring a group's preferences as a whole by looking at what the group does as a whole. That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo. You simple won't accept offerings and sales as the proof they are. And not based, I'm afraid, on some objective reasoning, but rather the idea that there's some kind of elitism tied up in measuring a group's preferences as a whole by looking at what the group does as a whole. That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb.

OK, well, we've made it to the calling names segment of our program...

I thought I'd been very polite in my attempt to inform you that you are full of shit.  Apparently I was wrong. Since we're throwing pretense out:

Who the fuck are you stupid cunt?  You come in here and throw around a couple of Amazon rankings (which people doubt quite a bit anyway) as some sort of oracle of fucking truth?  What are you, some sort of in-bred mouthbreather? Jesus Fucking Christ.  There are a ton of people who stiil play AD&D. They are RPG consumers.  So how the fuck do they not figure in to a term like "today's RPG consumer?" This doesn't even get into the fact that your almighty Amazong rankings weren't quite the whole story. But you're such a fucking shithead you couldn't actually look up any AD&D books, could you?

Your "proof" also consists of stating that D&D 3.x and AD&D are different. What the fuck kind of stupidity is that? That's your great and powerful argument for a change in tastes? It's still D&D, fuckface. Sure some rules have changed, but the underlying concepts remain.  What kind of dumb prick says because now people choose royal blue in larger numbers than navy blue that it's proof navy blue is no longer in line with "today's color consumer?"

And that's it?  That's the sum total of your vaunted logical proof?  What a load of shit.

Whew! I don't know how Pundit does it. But I figured I'd try to pick up a little of the slack while he's gone.

The polite me would say:

• Your Amazon rankings were incomplete at best.  For some reason, you are unable to grasp that Amazon rankings tell us little in the first place, and that yours are particularly weak given those provided in counterpoint.
• You are, for some reason, unable to grasp the concept that not everyone agree with your characterization of AD&D.  For many people who still play it, support it, chat about it in forums, buy the books on Amazon, it is not a hand drill, washboard, or black and white TV.
• Since those people are doing those things at this point in time, they must be included in any figuring of a formulation of "today's RPG consumer."
• Added to that group are those who choose later, even current, versions of D&D.  Yes, several aspects are different - in particular specific mechanics.  But most of the overarching concepts are still present.  If anything AD&D is more like 3.x than different.
• Given the above, your "proof" amounts to nothing but your opion.
• Ergo, you are a poopyhead.

Quote from: James J SkachOK, well, we've made it to the calling names segment of our program...

Not exactly—I addressed your argument, not you as a person. "That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb." It's dumb, not you're dumb.

Seanchai

I don't play AD&D myself - so I don't really have a dog in this fight.  Still think the quotes at the beginning of this thread were fine by themselves as general gaming advice.

HOWEVER,
 I DO see a LOT of gamers talking about RPGs on an almost daily basis. Thats part of my job.

 AD&D - there is STILL a lot of affection for that game amongst gamers. Even those now playing the D20 version of it.  At the store there are many customers thatr just buy the map tiles and miniatures - and they are using those with their barely surviving AD&D books.
 This kind of thing may not show up in Amazon figures on industry magazine sales figures charts - but it does happen.


- E.W.C.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe more things change, the more they stay the same in the case of D&D though. THAC is mathematically the same as THACO,...

Really? I could have sworn that AD&D AC had a hard cap? You sure don't come up with the numbers or apply to rolls in any remotely similar way other than physical armor and dex are (usually) good.  They kept some key names (Armor Class) and they kept that Strength helps you hit (only now Feats let you bypass that) and the use of the d20 (with high roll=good). Enough to keep the brand while hauling a lot of the junk out.

QuoteThe saving throw system is a little funky looking now, but you still use it the same basic way.

Sure, if by "same basic way" you mean "completely different except that you still roll a d20 and it is still called a 'Saving Throw' and succeeding at the roll is still a Good Thing".

QuoteI think the Players Handbook and the Monster Manual are organised just fine.

Ooookay....

Sure it was a successor. Obviously imperative that it appear as one. But it was at it's heart a rewrite.

Quote from: blakkieReally? I could have sworn that AD&D AC had a hard cap? You sure don't come up with the numbers or apply to rolls in any remotely similar way other than physical armor and dex are (usually) good.  They kept some key names (Armor Class) and they kept that Strength helps you hit (only now Feats let you bypass that) and the use of the d20 (with high roll=good). Enough to keep the brand while hauling a lot of the junk out.

I think you are just picking at nits here. If you are rolling a d20 to beat the opponents armor class and then rolling some dice or another for damage then its the same old shit we used to do in the 80s. It's not exactly the same system down to the last detail, but it is close enough to keep the brand as you say.

Quote from: blakkieSure, if by "same basic way" you mean "completely different except that you still roll a d20 and it is still called a 'Saving Throw' and succeeding at the roll is still a Good Thing".

By "same basic way" I mean if you get bit by a spider or have a fireball thrown at you, the DM is gonna make you roll a d20 to see if you get poisoned or take half damage or whatever. Do they want you to roll low now to make saves or is it still roll over? Either way it is implemented for the same reasons, so I dont think it's "completely different".

Quote from: blakkieOoookay....

You don't think the original Monster Manual (for instance) is organised? It's just an alphabetical listing of critters. It works pretty well for most people, I would think.

I'm not saying D&D 3e is the same exact game as the original, I'm one of those guys who prefers 1st ed, remember. What I'm saying is they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way you arrive at to-hit numbers and such may even be vastly different, but you use them in game the same way. For all the things they tweaked, there are still classes and levels, the stats are the same, there are still opportunities for people to get wanky and min/max, beholders, vorpel swords, etc. If it didn't say Dungeons and Dragons on the cover, everyone would say it was a rip-off of Dungeons and Dragons. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the rules changes make for a different game play experience or not, but I would say that they don't really amount to much in the long run.

As to Gygax's writing style, I don't guess we are going to see eye to eye on that so I won't belabor the point.