I quit playing AD&D after they dropped the "A". 3.0 and 3.5 were not an improvement in my book.

I still play several versions of OD&D/BD&D and several OSR games. I would probably play AD&D if someone offered to run it.

Over all it is that my tastes in gaming have changed and evolved and AD&D and its successors no longer meet my needs and desires. I don't see this as a reason to appologize for them though.

The pontifications of Gygaz and other TSR staff back in the early 80s were viewed as excessive pomposity. He really was full of himself. I remember a statement that using house rules was "not playing D&D".

Quote from: Brad;852212And you wonder why they call RPG people pedantic nerds...

I dont. And you see this in the board games too. Sometimes worse. And that kids is an accomplishment.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852205* stations archers to cover all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Its not going to shut him up you know. Best to nuke em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Like an echo from a golden age, I reiterate the apex of this thread (unsurprisingly from the first page). May it mollify you all into decorum. :cool:

That and it talks about Labyrinth, which garners cool points and is always worth reposting. Dance magic, dance.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;845410I loved the fuck out of AD&D 1st Ed back in the day. I played it with teens (My own age) and college kids and middle-age dudes (Older than me). Good times, good times. Being into 1st ed Ad&D in the eighties was like losing your virginity to Labyrinth-era Jennifer Connelly. Over and over and over again.

As much as I cherish D&DV and playing today, it's not any "Better" than it was in 1985. RULES DON'T MATTER... they're just the house you throw your party in. Dungeon Master  creativity, enthusiasm, and storytelling skills and player enthusiasm are more important than the rules every single day. I once  played in a 2nd Edition AD&D game ran in a  rotting low-income housing project and DM'ed by a meth-head that had more pure energy and fun and creativity and role-playing and drama than anything anybody ever did with FATE. Back in May I ran an D&DV "Free RPG Day" event for a local comic-book store and the players were all super-hyper and into it and I felt like I was riding the third rail of a subway train. The "rules" faded into soft background noise and almost became irrelevant.


RULES. DO. NOT. FUCKING . MATTER.

I'm drunk, forgive me if I'm rambling.

Quote from: Brad;852212And you wonder why they call RPG people pedantic nerds...

There's pedantry, then there's pettifoggery, then there's simple arbitrary narrow-mindedness.

I could point out the text Estar missed on p.105, but the problem is not that he's wrong on the dot; it's that he won't see the whole picture.

There's no reason to test the limits of fair use when he already has the text.

Why even quote the paragraph in which Gygax defines 'uniformity' with specifics, when the pseudo-pedantic know-nothing's argument boils down to ignoring the whole discourse through PHB 8 and DMG 9?

Here's something worth quoting, though:

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

Quote from: DavetheLost;852232The pontifications of Gygaz and other TSR staff back in the early 80s were viewed as excessive pomposity. He really was full of himself. I remember a statement that using house rules was "not playing D&D".

Exactly, the question was why was he writing like that? The uncharitable view is that Gygax was being pompous and like you said "full of himself".

After what have been coming out in the last decade. I don't think he full of himself or being pompous at all.  He was doing what he felt was necessary to get TSR out from under the flood of questions that they were being bombarded with along with making tournaments easier to run which was a major part of the promotion of D&D among the hobby at the time.

Whether what he did was the "best" way to handle the situation that open to debate and not the point of my observation.

Phillips and other claim that I am not looking at the big picture. I feel that I am. To me Phillip and other that are ignoring all the "pompous" statements that Gary makes in the PHB, DMG, and Dragon magazine.

Why is that? Well because "pompous" Gygax is powerful image in the hobby. One that still mocked to this day, for example the Gary Jackson character in Knights of the Dinner Table. And that image angers people who like AD&D, who know and liked Gary Gygax.

The traditional response is to sweep it under the rug and focus on his genius and good qualities. And make no mistake the guy was a genius.

I don't think we don't need to sweep it under the rug. I don't think the story is that Gary was so flush with success that that he acted without thinking pompous and arrogant.

In my view the story is that OD&D and its supplements were not as well-written or organized as they needed to be and that TSR was suffering for it. That AD&D was written in part to provide hard and fast rules for various areas of game that needed it and the rest of it was a flexible toolkit to make campaigns out of.

That this wound up with Gygax promoting"official AD&D" with a heavy hand which ultimately led to people mocking him for it because they thought he was full of it when in reality he was trying to fix a real problem.

That for me is the big picture

There is one postscript in that because of the heavy handed promotion of "official AD&D" there exist today an interest in how AD&D is supposed to work "by the book".

However the reality of the hobby since the earliest day is that people can and will kit bashwhatever the hell they want to make the campaign they want. My personal view that is a good thing. But I am not going to mock people who are interested in or want to run AD&D by the book. Whatever floats their boat. I personally use a mix of OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, and my own rules to run my classic D&D campaigns so I am in that crowd.

Quote from: Phillip;852409Here's something worth quoting, though:

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

So you are denying that multiple times before and after the release of AD&D along within the books themselves; that Gary Gygax stated that if you don't use the rules in the books you are not running an 'Official' AD&D campaign."

If you don't deny it, then what your explanation for why Gygax spent a lot of time hammering that point in the late 70s and early 80s.

Thanks, Estar, for another example of Bizarro World literacy.

Quote from: estar;852426Exactly, the question was why was he writing like that? The uncharitable view is that Gygax was being pompous and like you said "full of himself".

After what have been coming out in the last decade. I don't think he full of himself or being pompous at all.  He was doing what he felt was necessary to get TSR out from under the flood of questions that they were being bombarded with along with making tournaments easier to run which was a major part of the promotion of D&D among the hobby at the time.

Whether what he did was the "best" way to handle the situation that open to debate and not the point of my observation.

My observation was based on how our group reacted at the time. Not with the benefit of almost four decades of hindsight and the revelations that have come out in the last decade.

I don't deny that Gary and Dave were creative geniuses who undeniably changed the world, if only in a minor way.

I never met Gary, so I do not know what he was like in person. I don't really care much either. I enjoyed his game.

Quote from: Phillip;852432Thanks, Estar, for another example of Bizarro World literacy.

Thus avoiding the question I ask in favor of taking a shot at me.

Quote from: estar;852428So you are denying that multiple times before and after the release of AD&D along within the books themselves; that Gary Gygax stated that if you don't use the rules in the books you are not running an 'Official' AD&D campaign."

If you don't deny it, then what your explanation for why Gygax spent a lot of time hammering that point in the late 70s and early 80s.

Corporate Gary != DM Gary

Or do you not understand the differentiation?

Quote from: Brad;852445Corporate Gary != DM Gary

Or do you not understand the differentiation?

I understand the difference.

Let me ask this. How does corporate Gary vs DM Gary relate to writing AD&D and specifically the DMG? Why do you think there is a corporate Gary in the first place?

Secondarily where did I say that Gary Gygax personally thought everybody needed to use the AD&D rules as is'? I know he didn't use the AD&D rules by the book in his own campaign then or later. My points are related to the time period when AD&D was created and promoted.

What I am focused on is why he acted as Corporate Gary in writing, and promoting AD&D. I don't think the explanation that the simple that he had good reason for what happened.

What Gary or anyone else said in the magazines or at cons is utterly and absolutely irrelevant to the stance in the AD&D books. Probably half of the playerbase didnt get Dragon or attend cons. And those that did might have never seen the articles or heard any such statements from Gary you so pedantically blindly quote to serve your own ends.

But yes please. Go ahead and quote something to falsely prove your point ad nausium.

Back on topic. Why do people need to apologize for AD&D? Because chuckleheads like this exist.

Yeah yeah I know that wasnt the OPs topic. But this thread hasnt been on that topic for I dont know how long?

Why do people feel they need to apologize for playing AD&D? Some probably because of the age old "I hate it because someone told me to." Others because they feel, or someone told them they should "outgrow" the game. That is was for children or who knows what imaginary reasons people concoct.

Gosh, do I not want to get into this, but my first thought is: shouldn't Gary be held accountable for being Gary, whether he's in corporate garb or not? My second thought is: like all of us, Gary is allowed to change, or reinforce his views. We're all in a constant state of revision, aren't we?