Quote from: Seanchai;253538What page are those on?

From the TOC of Volume 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (which was 36 pages total):

The Wilderness....14
Castles....15
Movement...17
Wilderness Wondering Monsters...18
Evading in the Wilderness...19
Construction of Castles and Strongholds...20
Men-at-Arms...23
Baronies...24
Land Combat...25
Aerial Combat...25
Naval Combat...28
Special Suggestions for Monsters in Naval Adventures...35

QuoteWhich is where all the rules, guidelines, and suggestions about tricking opponents, social combat, negotiation, etc., come in...

No one expected or needed rules for this type of stuff back then -- any more than people needed detailed rules on how to negotiate with other players in a game of Diplomancy. Such rules still aren't really needed today, although they are definitely expected.

Quote from: Seanchai;253534Personally, I think it's the experiences we had with Moldvay, among others, that gave rise to modern attitudes about gaming and modern mechanics. It doesn't seem to me that we really have any fresh blood in the hobby and thus movement away this type of Magic User is being made by folks who have been playing for decades...

Yeah I said something like this upthread. It's all about whether your concept of D&D has became fossilized or not. It ain't about the tryranny of fun. It's about the dictatorship of nostalgia. However I'm not so sure about the lack of fresh blood. It depends which edition of D&D is your gateway into the hobby. And more and more I see (hear) that 3.0 was it for many - IMO, IME etc.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RandallS;253561

QuoteWhich is where all the rules, guidelines, and suggestions about tricking opponents, social combat, negotiation, etc., come in...

No one expected or needed rules for this type of stuff back then -- any more than people needed detailed rules on how to negotiate with other players in a game of Diplomancy. Such rules still aren't really needed today, although they are definitely expected.

OD&D actually does discuss (and include general guidelines for) negotiations with monsters (including NPCs) in vol. I pp. 12-13 -- the implication is that PCs will try to bribe monsters/NPCs of compatible alignment into service, and will also force defeated enemies into service (or sell them into slavery!).

A simplified version of the same monster reaction table is also included in Vol. III, p. 12 under the heading "Random Actions by Monsters" with a footnote stating that:

QuoteThe dice score is to be modified by additions and subtractions for such things as bribes offered, fear, alignment of the parties concerned, etc.

Quote from: T. Foster;253575OD&D actually does discuss (and include general guidelines for) negotiations with monsters (including NPCs) in vol. I pp. 12-13 -- the implication is that PCs will try to bribe monsters/NPCs of compatible alignment into service, and will also force defeated enemies into service (or sell them into slavery!).

I didn't mention that because I didn't think it would be detailed or crunchy enough to be the type of rules Seanchai seems to want.

Quote from: David R;253573Yeah I said something like this upthread. It's all about whether your concept of D&D has became fossilized or not. It ain't about the tryranny of fun. It's about the dictatorship of nostalgia.

I don't understand this. You're speaking too allusively for me to know what you mean.

The experience people had with Moldvay was a product of their own expectations and the practices of the people they played the game with.

As I sketched above, if they had fun with the game, it was very likely because they knew, or grokked, that the rules weren't something you hit hard all the time, unless you were willing to suffer the consequences. In other words, people mattered. If you thought that D&D was a game like chess or stratego, where you can always get your way by means of the rules, regardless of what the other players wanted, then you were setting yourself up for failure one way or another.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;253596I don't understand this. You're speaking too allusively for me to know what you mean.

The experience people had with Moldvay was a product of their own expectations and the practices of the people they played the game with.

As I sketched above, if they had fun with the game, it was very likely because they knew, or grokked, that the rules weren't something you hit hard all the time, unless you were willing to suffer the consequences. In other words, people mattered. If you thought that D&D was a game like chess or stratego, where you can always get your way by means of the rules, regardless of what the other players wanted, then you were setting yourself up for failure one way or another.

Well what I meant was that for some their conception of what D&D is is tied to a particular edition of the game. With each succesive edition the nature of the game changes leaving them out of the loop.

As I mentioned I think D&D designers more or less know what fans expect of the game but this is cold comfort for those who got exactly what they wanted out of the edition that has been revamped.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RandallS;253561From the TOC of Volume 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (which was 36 pages total):

Sorry, what page are these at in Moldvay?

Quote from: RandallS;253561No one expected or needed rules for this type of stuff back then...

Because the game was about moving from encounter to encounter, fighting stuff, and then moving deeper into the dungeon. The "roleplaying" involved back then revolved around choosing a class.

Seanchai

Moldvay was a subset of the D&D rules, and was explicitly packaged as such.  It was meant to ease new players and DMs into role-playing.  You can't treat that book as a complete system.  The Expert book added wilderness stuff.

But even so:

The examples in Moldvay show players parleying with hobgoblins.  It even shows the DM making rulings on the fly for RP (Silverleaf's open hands).

The advice section on B60-61 has much that is RP-oriented in addition to purely mechanical suggestions.

The Retainers section on B21 mentions creating personae for NPCs...why do that if there was no RP in the game?

There is a section on Languages on page B13.  These are included so PCs can interact with monsters and NPCs, i.e. role-play.

No matter what you think of them, alignments were included to guide RP.

The Introduction chapter of Moldvay touches on RP.

Module B2, which came with the Moldvay box, has a lot of advice that is RP-oriented.

Quote from: David R;253573It ain't about the tryranny of fun. It's about the dictatorship of nostalgia.

I agree. Personally, I think folks may be having trouble separating their memories of the rules from their memories of the game. As I said before, I had an awesome time playing Basic and AD&D. In spite of the rules, not because of them.

Quote from: David R;253573However I'm not so sure about the lack of fresh blood. It depends which edition of D&D is your gateway into the hobby. And more and more I see (hear) that 3.0 was it for many - IMO, IME etc.

I've heard over and over again that 3e brought folks back to the hobby or back to D&D. Not so much that 3e was their introduction to the game. I know it happens - I introduced a couple of people (gurlz, even) to the hobby via 3e - I just don't get the impression that these folks are numerous enough to drive developments in rules systems and in the industry.

It seems to me that the folks who are moving us away from old school - if that is indeed happening - are former old school players and DMs.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;253720Sorry, what page are these at in Moldvay?

What on Earth does the Moldvay rules have to do what was in the three LBB -- the ones I mentioned in the post you replied to asking for page numbers -- or with how D&D was originally played. The Moldvay Basic Set came out late 1980/early 1981 -- that's six plus years after the publication of D&D. Also Moldvay isn't a complete set of D&D rules. It is a introduction to the game limited to the first three levels and using dungeons to introduce the game. The Cook Expert Set that follows it provides rules for up to level 14 or so does have a lot of material on non-dungeon exploration. Both the Moldvay and the Cook Sets are needed for a complete version of D&D. That's why this version of D&D is often referred to as Moldvay/Cook.

QuoteBecause the game was about moving from encounter to encounter, fighting stuff, and then moving deeper into the dungeon. The "roleplaying" involved back then revolved around choosing a class.

Perhaps that's how you and your friends played in 1981, but it not how people I know played in the 1970s. It isn't even how Moldvay/Cook D&D was intended to be played once one got beyond the limited rules provided as an introduction to the system in the Moldvay set and had the full rules from both sets available.

Quote from: Seanchai;253726I just don't get the impression that these folks are numerous enough to drive developments in rules systems and in the industry.

I didn't mean to imply this. Like I said I think the designers more or less know what fans - long time gamers - want out of the system. They are the ones - and no not the dreaded forgegroupthink - who are influencing developments. Although IME new players like these developments better than the old style of play.

QuoteIt seems to me that the folks who are moving us away from old school - if that is indeed happening - are former old school players and DMs.

Most likely. Most gamers are open to change esp when it comes to D&D.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Seanchai;253726I agree. Personally, I think folks may be having trouble separating their memories of the rules from their memories of the game. As I said before, I had an awesome time playing Basic and AD&D. In spite of the rules, not because of them.

You talk like all the old schooler's stopped playing and reading the games they love.  I don't have to separate my memories of anything from anything, I'm gaming these old games in the hear and now.

Now I think is the time to invoke an old rule.

Do not fight with Ferrous Cranus.

A good lesson, that.

...But...But...Then you could never talk to *Anyone* on the internet!