Quote from: T. Foster;955611It's not only not a totally black and white line, it seems you've gotten it mostly backwards. The rules in the OD&D boxed set (Jan 1974) are generally very close to those in the so-called Dalluhn Manuscript (c. 1973), which appears to be based on the playtest manuscript Gary Gygax prepared either quickly after starting (or even, depending on the account you read, possibly before starting) the Greyhawk Castle campaign in late 1972. So while some elements (those inherited from Arneson - whatever they might be) may have had a couple years of playtesting behind them, most of it was freshly made up by Gary.

What crack of your ass did you pull THAT out of?

Says the guy who was, you know, actually THERE.

There are some factual statements in that little recitatieve, but the conclusions require more jumping than an Olympic hurdles race.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611It's not only not a totally black and white line, it seems you've gotten it mostly backwards. The rules in the OD&D boxed set (Jan 1974) are generally very close to those in the so-called Dalluhn Manuscript (c. 1973), which appears to be based on the playtest manuscript Gary Gygax prepared either quickly after starting (or even, depending on the account you read, possibly before starting) the Greyhawk Castle campaign in late 1972. So while some elements (those inherited from Arneson - whatever they might be) may have had a couple years of playtesting behind them, most of it was freshly made up by Gary. It was all experimental and was in constant flux - there are major changes from the Dalluhn Manuscript to the published boxed set, and then a further set of equally major changes in Supplement I was released in 1975. The foundation of the game absolutely was not solid in this era - it was in very rapid and strong flux as various concepts were tested out in play and then dropped or modified, and new elements were added. The D&D set as published was just a snapshot of how the rules stood as of one particular moment (just as the Dalluhn Manuscript had been of a few months prior, and Supplement I was of a few months later).

I figured the bolded part was implied by my post. Anyway I concur that the OD&D was snapshot in time. And yes there was a day where Gygax sat down, designed and wrote down rules before he initiated the Greyhawk campaign. But from there to the published boxed it was being twisted and hammered on over an over again by Gygax and players over the course of two years. My opinion is that style of development is allowed the core concepts of D&D to persist to this date despite multiple editions.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611By contrast, AD&D is the fruit of ~5 years of extremely heavy playtesting, both in-house and in what was, effectively, a worldwide "open beta" with the OD&D set.

Really? Because I haven't read a single anecdote or account of Gygax using the initiative system as outlined in the DMG, the Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules, or several other problematic sections of AD&D. The ones I read all talk about the deluge of phone calls, questions, and rule calls from thousands playing. That the development of AD&D was meant to address that by creating a definitive ruleset for D&D.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611But to claim that OD&D's rules are the solid result of extensive, rigorous playtesting and AD&D's are something that was hastily thrown together and untested is not only not true, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

I never claimed that OD&D was playtested as the term is understood today. Rather the process was one of starting from a relatively basic set of rules and modifying it over time due to the demands of the campaigns and what the players were and were not doing.

I was reading Playing at the World, Hawk and Moor, and the various archives and post of antecdotes posted by Gygax and other folks back in the day. There was something familiar about the accounts of how OD&D and AD&D were developed. Then I realized that it I encountered this in my job as head programmer.

See back in the days, the idea to deal with complex software is from the top down. Find the overall view and break it down into its parts until you get to the level of code. Well after several decades of this and several spectacular failures people started trying alternative. One approach that has worked was to start off with a basic framework of the software. Something that does a few functions well. Then listen to your users and chart your development path on what they use or don't use. Your initial design includes numerous small scale tests so you if make a mistake that alters some existing feature it is flagged when the developer complies. Anything you add you build in new test to verity it work as expected. You keeping repeating this cycle growing the software over time. Because you have the small scale tests you can safely alter the design if you didn't account for something.

The problem of course that this works best for new projects. Trying to write all the tests for an existing project can be problematic for one's budget.

Anyway, start small and grow in response to what the users actually do describe OD&D's development to the tee. Top down is fits exactly what happened to AD&D's development. Of course nothing operates in a vacuum. So yeah a lot of AD&D mechanics was informed by the feedback gotten from people playing OD&D. The sin, if you can call it that, is that Gygax didn't take the initial manuscript and use it to run some campaigns the way he did with OD&D.

Finally understand, I am in the process of writing down the rules I been using in my campaigns since I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands in 2009. This is something that most hobbyists don't engage in. For this I will standby my opinion that OD&D development path is the superior approach. But for the regular hobbyist (player or referee) the strengths of both version greatly outweigh any flaws they may have. And the differences between the two when it comes to making a character or running a campaign is a matter of inches. For that situation I say pick the one you like and run the character or campaign you got in your head. Both will work.

From his own statements it seems clear that Gygax, and other designers, introduced rules that they didn't even use themselves at the table (eg. weapon speed).

Some were likely suggested or requested by players. Or experiments that while not of use personally, were deemed interesting enough to add in in case someone else had a use.