Quote from: Mistwell;1076087You appear to be advocating for the Kobe Bryant, Roman Polanski, and Michael Vick defense. IE if they are very good at their profession and popular, they deserve more forgiveness than if they are mediocre at their profession and less popular.*

*Of note: I think Zak is talented at RPG writing and I quite liked Vornheim.



but you're just not creative enough to think of a different one?

I'm not saying we should let Mentzer be a guest at GaryCon, what I am saying is WOTC should not remove BECMI D&D solely because Mentzer himself is an ass.

Same goes for Cosby's comedy albums or Polanski's films. And Mentzer is nowhere near as heinous as those two examples.

Go back to Portland, pinko!

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1076090I'm not saying we should let Mentzer be a guest at GaryCon, what I am saying is WOTC should not remove BECMI D&D solely because Mentzer himself is an ass.

Same goes for Cosby's comedy albums or Polanski's films. And Mentzer is nowhere near as heinous as those two examples.

I agree. Still waiting for why you think their popularity was an important marker for their differences.

QuoteGo back to Portland, pinko!

Oh you think I am on the left? Do tell.

Greetings!

Yeah, Mistwell certainly is not a Pinko. Granted, he is a lawyer, which there are many, many liberal lawyers. There are, however, some good conservative lawyers. Mistwell has always been solidly on the right hand of things. Certainly not an SJW!

Good to see you, Mistwell!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I just rolled up a character named Mentzer.

He has high Int, but low Wis.....

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1076027Frank Mentzer...made a very influential and popular RPG...

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. The 1981 Basic and Expert sets already existed. The rules in the revised 1983 versions were almost identical. His biggest changes were in the Basic set, where he reorganized the books into a DM reference and a Players book with that choose-your-own-adventure introduction to D&D thing (Aleena and Bargle and all that). And there were some changes to the "scale" to stretch the levels out to the 36 level top end.

In the later sets, he introduced more stuff that is uniquely "his," like the Weapon Mastery rules and the Immortals rules stuff. It's mostly material that I ignore as either detrimental to the game (IMO) or simply not to my taste.

Frankly, I prefer the '81 Basic and Expert sets over the '83 Basic and Expert sets. I find the organization of the '81 sets to be better for actual long term use/play (that choose your own adventure thing is just a waste after you've been introduced to the game. It would've been better as a insert, not as part of the rulebook). I also like the level scale of the 81 sets better. They're more suited to the kind of level range that I actually see in D&D games. Lastly, I prefer the art of the '81 sets, although many might disagree with me on that one.

It is a bit ironic that the best Basic in Moldvay '81 (once you know how to play), but the best Expert is Mentzer '83. Mentzer's Expert is the only one to be a single book, all the rest of BECMI suffers rather from padding. When I ran a several-year BECM campaign recently it was definitely the heart of the campaign, and pretty well-worn by the end!

As far as art goes, I find it just depends what kind of mood I want. I used BECM because my son, who was only about 6 at the time, pointed to my Larry Elmore art book and said that was the kind of game he wanted for his first D&D campaign. I enjoyed embracing the High Fantasy tropes - his PC started off as an MU-4 riding a white dragon, duelling an evil red dragonrider over the skies of Alasiya and returning to marry the princess of Karameikos. The rejected choice of Frazetta art we played later - Wilderlands & now Primeval Thule.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1076125In the later sets, he introduced more stuff that is uniquely "his," like the Weapon Mastery rules and the Immortals rules stuff. It's mostly material that I ignore as either detrimental to the game (IMO) or simply not to my taste.

It's slightly unfair that you mention two of his weaker contributions and not the IMO-excellent Dominion and War Machine/mass battle rules in the companion set, which I tend to use in most of the versions of D&D I run.

I definitely prefer Moldvay and Holmes over Mentzer for BD&D, but in actual play, its not a big deal.

Quote from: Zalman;1076059I'd work to attend a real gaming convention like this one. You know, one about ... gaming. No joke.

Fortunately, most regional conventions and small cons are about gaming. It's the national cons (GenCon and Origins) that are virtue signalling.

Of course, a con deep in SJW country is also probably going to be a shitshow. GaryCon seems to want on the Virtue Train and that choo choo goes to Go Woke Go Broke Town.

And I'd argue small cons are FAR better for actual gaming than national cons.

As long as grognards are still alive and well, Mentzer can't be erased from the history of the game.

My D&D library doesn't include any of the B/X branch of the family tree, other than a good clone of OD&D.  My library's focus is OD&D, to 1E, forward.  But I'm familiar with the history of the B/X products.  Mentzer was a big deal, and has a legacy there, period.

Quote from: S'mon;1076149It's slightly unfair that you mention two of his weaker contributions and not the IMO-excellent Dominion and War Machine/mass battle rules in the companion set, which I tend to use in most of the versions of D&D I run.

I think the war machine rules are fine, for what they are. (That is, I don't actively dislike them like I do the weapons mastery and immortals rules.) I used them a few times, a long time ago, but I found that if I'm going to do any mass combat in a D&D campaign, I like using minis (or counters) and actual tabletop warfare rules of one sort or another. I've used Chainmail for this, and also Field of Glory. The war machine rules are more abstract. I imagine that works well for many people. I just like the wargaming opportunity that mass combat provides, so I don't want to exclude it by getting too abstract.

Quote from: Razor 007;1076177As long as grognards are still alive and well, Mentzer can't be erased from the history of the game.

I don't think this was directed at my comments, but just to be clear, I'm certainly not proposing that Mentzer be erased from the history of the game.

QuoteMy D&D library doesn't include any of the B/X branch of the family tree, other than a good clone of OD&D.  My library's focus is OD&D, to 1E, forward.  But I'm familiar with the history of the B/X products.

I've owned and have played all the TSR editions, at one point or another (although I'd quit buying by the time TSR got around to releasing what people refer to as the "2.5" books, so I don't own those). I don't play B/X (or BECMI) these days. (I wouldn't turn down a game, I just prefer some of the other editions). These days I either run 1e AD&D (when I want a traditional D&D game with the classic tropes/etc), or I run my house-ruled original D&D game (starting with the little brown books and cherry picking/adding house rules to suit my taste and the campaign).

QuoteMentzer was a big deal, and has a legacy there, period.

Sure. He edited a successful release of D&D. And he edited and finished Gygax's Temple of Elemental Evil, which is also noteworthy, historically. And he was instrumental in organizing the RPGA.

Quote from: S'mon;1076149It's slightly unfair that you mention two of his weaker contributions and not the IMO-excellent Dominion and War Machine/mass battle rules in the companion set, which I tend to use in most of the versions of D&D I run.

They weren't his contributions.  They were Doug Niles' and Garry Spiegle's.  Frank deserves credit for war machine about as much as Gygax deserves credit for Oriental Adventures over Zeb Cook.  He certainly doesn't deserve the same sort of credit as his authentic work, like the choose-your-own-adventure portion.  

QuoteA shout-out (one more time):

ouat, I was a good project director. I knew exactly what I wanted, and described it conceptually in great detail. I picked 2 guys, Doug Niles and Garry Spiegle.  

I wanted a number-crunching system to handle battles. I didn't care how math-heavy it got, but simpler was better, and adding/subtracting was better than dividing/multiplying. It had to account for the usual factors in such battles, and troops -- just every monster in the entire game system (!).

The tricky parts: It had to accommodate any scale (50, 500, 500000). It had to include a way for the DMs and players to select a level of involvement (story focus). And it had to include the PC influence (huge, at Companion levels).

They delivered. That was War Machine (which begat Siege Machine and Sea Machine).

Thanks Doug, Garry. Your outstanding work is remembered.

F

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1421502#p1421502

Quote from: EOTB;1076203They weren't his contributions.  They were Doug Niles' and Garry Spiegle's.  Frank deserves credit for war machine about as much as Gygax deserves credit for Oriental Adventures over Zeb Cook.  He certainly doesn't deserve the same sort of credit as his authentic work, like the choose-your-own-adventure portion.  




https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1421502#p1421502

OK, cool.

Quote from: S'mon;1076148As far as art goes, I find it just depends what kind of mood I want. I used BECM because my son, who was only about 6 at the time, pointed to my Larry Elmore art book and said that was the kind of game he wanted for his first D&D campaign.

Your son has outstanding taste.

The cover from the BECMI Basic set pretty much defines Dungeons and Dragons for me.

My first exposure to DnD was through the Mentzer Red box so to be honest I would probably have to see him eating a baby to change my opinion of him.

I am still hopeful that we will be able to get a Kickstarter of Worlds of Empyrea at some stage before shipping gets too expensive.