Quote from: Doom;470644For what it's worth, I saw both Atari's planned D&D/GW games at E3, and both looked like fun, although GW is more of a shoot-em-up than a RPG, at least from what I saw.

Don't get me wrong, I really like a good guns-and-numbers, or swords-and-numbers, game (They're not RPG's in the least) - but it really does seem like a waste of a license like D&D or GW. There's scope for a wackier rival for Fallout's post-apocalyptic crown.

I did remember hearing there would be sequels / expansions to Daggerdale, wonder how that panned out? I haven't go to play it, because apparently the PC version is a poor port from the console boxes, plus it got a delayed european release for no good reason...

Quote from: Ladybird;470714There's scope for a wackier rival for Fallout's post-apocalyptic crown.

I've always thought that was what Borderlands was, honestly.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;470454My wife games; generally the question is "Are we gaming this weekend?"

That aside, you do know that TSR kept OD&D in print for a good stretch after AD&D was released, right?  And that included Supplement V which supplanted Chainmail as the go-to wargame, right?

Eh, maybe not.  It's you, so...

Basic Set

QuoteNineteenth (1999)

• Renamed the Dungeons & Dragons Adventure Game
  
• Cover art is a red dragon breathing flame; bears the TSR Silver logo
• 32-pg  rulebook, 32-pg adventures book, eight "hero" (character) record sheets  in folding 2-pg panels (one for each of the eight character classes), a  cardstock DMs screen/map, 6 dice in a Ziploc bag, and a TSR logo dice  bag
• The last version of the Basic Set, before all product lines (to include 2nd Edition AD&D) were merged into the 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons system
  

Sure, it was again re-written about halfway along, this time for compatibility with the BECMI series, but that set (as reflected in the Rules Compendium) seems as popular as the original B/X version.

So TSR didn't have too many problems with two versions of their flagship line in the stores at once.  I daresay, using the full RC rules was just as complex as the 1st or 2nd edition AD&D rules when the BECMI/RC books were in full swing.

In regards to the article Frank linked to, it sounds more like they are going all-in with M:tG style exception based rules, except this time around, there will be a good reason to have a PHB2 or 3 or whatever.  They would actually have valid extensions to the 'core' rules, instead of just holding off on classes, races and spells to sell more books later.  If there is a direction for 5e, this will be where they are headed.  And it will make the online compendium more useful as well, instead of a kind of mish-mash of spells, equipment and classes that creates arguments at the table.

Quote from: StormBringer;470737Basic Set

No, I have a Gateway to Adventure catalog (or PDF thereof) with ads for AD&D books, and Basic D&D and original D&D in.  From ca. 1980.  Although I will admit this was likely less support and more "sell off old stock".

Quote from: StormBringer;470737Basic Set

I think you're mixing up here. TDD's talking OD&D, not Basic. This.

QuoteSixth (1977-1979)
        White box, showing a wizard and some orcs (like Fourth and Fifth), but now has a starburst stating "Original Collector’s Edition" (this was done to differentiate it from the D&D Basic Set, which had just been released), and the price has been removed
        Outside cover of Men & Magic shows a warrior standing with a sword and shield
        Outside covers of all three booklets have no price
        Inside covers of all three booklets are now the same color (parchment) as the exteriors, and do not state any printing number (though they still have the "copyright 1974" line)
        References to Hobbits and Ents have been changed to Halflings and Treants (see page 9 of Men & Magic), due to copyright conflicts with the Tolkien estate (with the exception of a single leftover reference on pg 6 to Hobbits!).  Furthermore, many other infringements on Tolkien's literary license were excised or changed; notably, references to Balrogs, Nazgul, and even several mentions of Tolkien himself
        Internal typeface is in an easy-to-read font
        This print originally came shrinkwrapped
        Often referred to as the "OCE" set
        The Sixth printing continued to be printed through the end of 1979
        Thanks to Matthew Foster and Neville Ridley-Smith for help with this info

Emphasis mine.

I was expanding his point, not countering it.  OD&D was in print up to '79 or '80, but Basic was in print until 1999.  The sale of TSR to WotC which led to 3rd edition is roughly the only thing that put it off the presses.  If TSR had been in a stronger position, we might still have that Basic set (roughly) in stores today.

Quote from: StormBringer;470766I was expanding his point, not countering it.  OD&D was in print up to '79 or '80, but Basic was in print until 1999.  The sale of TSR to WotC which led to 3rd edition is roughly the only thing that put it off the presses.  If TSR had been in a stronger position, we might still have that Basic set (roughly) in stores today.

They keep pushing shit out the door that is either incredibly horribly gimped (the "D&D Adventure Game"s of various flavors) or isn't Basic D&D, irrespective of stealing an old package for it (D&D Essentials).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;470781They keep pushing shit out the door that is either incredibly horribly gimped (the "D&D Adventure Game"s of various flavors) or isn't Basic D&D, irrespective of stealing an old package for it (D&D Essentials).

True, comparisons with BECMI/RC are probably better because the line was more consistent.  As I noted, they essentially re-wrote the "basic" rules from scratch several times.  The B/X version went to about '82, then they switched it to the BECMI version until '99, arguably the longest run with the same rules.  OD&D was in print until '79, when they got into full swing with AD&D, and published Holmes Basic.

As to how well they were supported?  I will leave that part of the argument to you.    For my part, I will say it is a little unfair to judge them as such; TSR of '78-'81 was very different than TSR of '88-'91 in regards to the efficiency of the supplement treadmill.

Quote from: StormBringer;470766I was expanding his point, not countering it.  OD&D was in print up to '79 or '80, but Basic was in print until 1999.  The sale of TSR to WotC which led to 3rd edition is roughly the only thing that put it off the presses.  If TSR had been in a stronger position, we might still have that Basic set (roughly) in stores today.

I did not get that. Apologies!

Quote from: Benoist;470836I did not get that. Apologies!

:hatsoff:
No harm, no foul.

I don't know what or if there will be any big news, but my mystical powers tell me some people, somewhere will be pissed off about something someone from WotC says.

Unfortunately the divine forces at work in the universe prevent me from being more specific than that.

Quote from: Peregrin;470914I don't know what or if there will be any big news, but my mystical powers tell me some people, somewhere will be pissed off about something someone from WotC says.

More generally, there exists individuals who are always pissed off about anything and everything.  The target of their anger, is largely irrelevant and/or may very well be independent of reality.  (It can be anything and everything).

Such individuals may very well have been "born" this way.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: daniel_ream;470725I've always thought that was what Borderlands was, honestly.

Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed Borderlands, it's definitely worth playing, but it's a relatively archetypal guns-and-numbers game rather than an actual RPG like Fallout. There's more character development in the first few minutes of Fallout 3 (I haven't played NV yet) than the entirety of Borderlands.

Quote from: Ladybird;470920Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoyed Borderlands, it's definitely worth playing, but it's a relatively archetypal guns-and-numbers game rather than an actual RPG like Fallout. There's more character development in the first few minutes of Fallout 3 (I haven't played NV yet) than the entirety of Borderlands.

Borderlands isn't an RPG insomuch as a FPS-Action/RPG hybrid, and it did it very, very well. Both games are great and do what they do nicely.

Quote from: ggroy;470918More generally, there exists individuals who are always pissed off about anything and everything.  The target of their anger, is largely irrelevant and/or may very well be independent of reality.  (It can be anything and everything).

The problem with the hobby is that it's become so small, there's no longer a mainstream to drown out the small toxic segments that just produce negativity or "Us vs Them" bullshit in terms of products or favored modes of play.  I've seen it happen in other gaming subcultures/communities and it basically kills any chance you have of expanding the audience, because looking from the outside, the first reaction of any sane person is "Fuck that noise."