Quote from: estar;933329Do you know how D&D was developed? Have you read Playing at the World or Hawk and Moor? Blackmoor was the campaign that largely consisted of Dave Arneson's ad-hoc rulings. However D&D had a much more deliberate design process. It more accurate to say that D&D itself was developed throughout the initial Greyhawk campaign. Which not only functioned as something fun to do but as a through playtest.

The fact it was hammered on and playtested in the Greyhawk campaign is why in my opinion D&D was the rare novelty that got it right from the get go. Why the basic mechanics endure to this day.

Now what the initial D&D did not get right was the presentation of the rules. The rulebooks were written by, and for, the circle of wargamers that Gygax associated with both locally and nationally. Gygax didn't states the many things that this group assumed. The foremost of which is that the rules were primarily an aide rather than a end all by all to run a D&D campaign.

Understand the norm back then was to figure out what you wanted to play, for example the Battle of Waterloo, or trying to take control of the town of Braustein, then figure out the rules to play that game. Published rules were few and far between. The default was to kit bash together. The OD&D core books reflect that ethos.


 It doesn't help that Gygax didn't write about how those mechanics developed especially in AD&D where he had the page count to devote a page or some paragraphs to the topic.

The heart of D&D is this. Gygax and Perrin developed a set of miniature wargame rules called Chainmail. Along with that they added two appendices, one to handle man to man combat, and the other to add fantasy characters and monsters. The first was because the historical accounts abound with tales of one on one duels in battle. Also for certain scenarios, storming a castle for example, man to man is a more satisfactory scale. The latter was because of the vivid battles describe in fiction like Howard's Conan and Tolkien's Lord of the Ring.

Man to Man combat worked by crossed indexing the weapon used by the armor worn. The result is a number that you have to roll equal to or higher on 2d6. One hit = one kill.

The fantasy supplement added Hero and Superheroes as options for a scenario. A hero was equal to four veteran warriors and took four hits to kill both in the mass battle rules and the man to man rules. A super hero was worth eight warriors and took eight hits to kill.

In Dave's Arneson Blackmoor campaign, one hit = one kill was found to be boring and unexciting. So it was expanded to one hit = 1d6 damage, and one hit to kill  = 1d6 hit points. So a hero would have 4d6 hit points, and a super hero had 8d6 hit points. From there the other levels were added. And the dice modifier for hit points was adjusted depended on your character class. With wizards getting less and fighting men getting more.

While Gygax offered chainmail's combat system as an option because a lot of his audience had a copy to begin, the system he settled (and presented as an alternative) was to use a d20 as a roll to hit. He made a chart cross-indexing the level of the character with the armor being worn. The higher level you are the more likely you are able to do damage to the target that round.

Vancian magic system was developed as an arbitrary choice by Gygax and refined from there. Arneson used a different system for his Blackmoor system that was based on finding reagents and components and crafting spells. Once crafted my impression is that you can then just use it whenever. While the reagents system was created by Arneson, this is consistent with Chainmail magic where Wizard could cast spells at will. The main limitation on a Chainmail Wizards was the number of spell he could maintain at once. A full Wizards could have 6 to 7 spells going at once. The original spells  (2nd edition Chainmail) were Phantasmal Force, Darkness, Wizard Light, Detection, Concealment, Conjurations of an Elemental, Moving Terrain, Protection from Evil. As well as at will Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

The point of this history lesson is point out that D&D is not a random collection of "Whatever". It make sense if you know how it was developed. It also doesn't mean that you should automatically like it. It is healthy for the hobby that we so many ways of handling the same basic set of actions. But it does point one of the main reason D&D endures. The core concepts are consistent and are do tie back to the fictional reality of fantasy medieval combat.

This answers quite a bit a of my personal issues, actually.  And I've always been under the impression that a lot of Gary's stuff was mostly assumed by his players because everyone at that table had been there on the ground floor, thus could make some assumptions that us poor saps who came in decades later couldn't quite get.

Food for thought, thank you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933438People forget "D&D tournaments," run at wargame conventions like wargame tournements, with prizes.

Origins in 1976 -- 250 people in the D&D tournament.  You can't do that with one judge.  At that point, "make up some shit you think will be fun" falls to the ground, especially with prizes with a significant money value.

I concur that the D&D tournaments, the first form of organized play, were also had a major impact on how RPGs developed. After Judges Guild paved the way, it was only natural to turn to the writeups for tournament adventures. They were only a hop and a skip away from being publishable. And unfortunately that became THE way that people thought adventures ought to be for RPGs when it should be one of many ways of presenting adventures and campaign ideas.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933442Yeah.  And that was a big part of what led to AD&D and Gary's "nailing it all down."  Not the only thing, no; but it was a strong force at the time.

Just one more thing to add to rules spam they were already getting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;933443This answers quite a bit a of my personal issues, actually.  And I've always been under the impression that a lot of Gary's stuff was mostly assumed by his players because everyone at that table had been there on the ground floor, thus could make some assumptions that us poor saps who came in decades later couldn't quite get.

Food for thought, thank you.

Glad to help. Not everybody agrees with me. Rob Kuntz had a "vigorous" objection to my conclusions over on the Ruins of Mirk Hill forums as well as others over the years.

I admit it just conjecture based on the anecdotes, and the commentary in the various rules books themselves (for example Kask's intro in Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes). But what clinched the deal for me is the work done in Playing at the World and Hawk and Moor. Playing the at World relies on primary sources first. The author had access to dozens of newletters and personal papers to do reasearch with. Hawk and Moor is more of a collection of antedotes but it is a very thourgh collection and individual stories often have more than one sources. Both are very good and together for me paints a compelling picture of how it was before, during, and after the release of D&D.

A very human picture, it was a golden age but also an age filled with some very human people. The major thing that leaped out that the whole corporate speak thing (Gygax and everybody else) didn't emerge until after the mid 70s. So that led me to look at what happened between 1974 and 1980.

And lay this point to rest, I don't do this to try to play like people back in the day. I do this to learn to improve what I do for the future. Because when you take the rulebooks as published AND what you learn from reading this stuff. You get a much broader picture of the possibilities and that is a good thing. If a person does this to be a slave to the past, then I feel they are missing the point.

Quote from: estar;933433

Quote from: AsenRG;933424BTW, does any retroclone adopt this approach to the magic system? It does seem rather interesting:)!

Dragons at Dawn claims to be based off Arneson's notes and stuff.

AFAICT, Dragons at Dawn has been brought down, or something:).
I'd love to get it, but it seems that's no longer an option. Southerwood Publishing is offering Champions of ZED instead, and some rules for magic in Zero-Edition Campaigns.
I actually own the magic rules, but they didn't seem that different from standard D&D. Maybe I should check them again and see whether I've missed a key difference hidden behind the spell lists;).

However, before that there was a review. And the review says the following about magic.

QuoteMagic, the next section, is definitely different than the pseudo-Vancian magic that has never left D&D. The very first paragraph reads: "Wizards can channel raw magic energy to make Wizard Light, Lightning Bolts and Fireballs. This magic may be thrown at will but requires the Wizard to make a Saving Throw versus Constitution for the spell to successfully trigger. Failure of the Saving Throw means failure of the magic and causes the Wizard to collapse with exhaustion..." The rest of the section describes the spells and explains they use material components. After a quote by Arneson about wanting to use spell points, it describes a system of magic using Spell Points. I know many people who think Spell Points are broken, but Spell Points allow a freedom that hundreds of pages of rules could not.

So, spell points (to do what?) and saving throws to keep doing the effort. Where did you get "can do it at will, but can't sustain multiple spells" from?

QuoteBut the deal is that Dave Arneson didn't really organize his stuff. He was a very smart and creative and most certainly the Father of Tabletop Roleplaying. But it took Gary Gygax organizational skills to take his ideas and turn them into Dungeons & Dragons. And from the various accounts D&D reflects more of what happened with Greyhawk than Blackmoor. Gygax used Arneson's ideas, and adapted them for his own purposes. So the reagent system was dropped in favor of Vancian magic. But we still have craftable scrolls and potions.

I can't tell who was The Father of Tabletop RPing, and frankly, it doesn't matter - I certainly like games that were created decades later, too:p. What matters to me is which ideas we like. And I like the ideas you mentioned, so I'd like to know more.
For once, I like wizards that create items to use continuously much better than those that Vancian magic.

QuoteGronan can relate first hand the differences between Arneson and Gygax.

If he chooses to.

QuoteFirst Fantasy Campaign by Judges Guild has the rules for magic swords. For the rest it the same problem I mention above. First Fantasy Campaign is pretty much Dave's raw notes formatted for publication by Judges Guild.

I might have been able to get that...except it's not in the list of Judges' Guild (not any more, at least).
Then again, the rules remind me of Earthdawn, and I own those, so I might be able to make up something that would be fun;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;933431Okay, fair enough.

Actually, it's odd; CHAINMAIL, DGUTS, and other games Gary wrote or helped write are nowhere near as disorganized as OD&D.  I often wonder if sometime in late summer of 1973 Don Kaye said "I'm tired of you screwing around, Gygax, we're publishing this damned thing."

Can certainly see that.  At the time it appeared to written by war gamers for war gamers who had Chainmail.  It was frustrating at times the organization and sketchiness of the rules, but also a breath of fresh air.  I was so used to playing war games with the tight rules, such as Squad Leader and Blitzkrieg, OD&D was dream come true.  I'm self selecting though aren't I; almost 40 years later and still playing RPGs.

Roll under percentile is probably the one that everyone gets immediately, so I'll go with that. I also like BRP.

Having said that : using die roll plus bonuses, particularly with exploding dice (Rolemaster, Artesia) can be fun.

Quote from: AsenRG;933482

Quote from: estar;933433AFAICT, Dragons at Dawn has been brought down, or something:).

The author says it's being 'revised'.

QuoteSo, spell points (to do what?) and saving throws to keep doing the effort. Where did you get "can do it at will, but can't sustain multiple spells" from?

The saving throws vs. constitution are just for wizard spells that directly channel magical energy on the spot... not the material/prepared spells that finalize in the form of potions and such.
The spell points are an optional/advanced addition that has wizards and elves (I think) still rolling to cast, but using up spell points gained from level and dexterity (IIRC). Once out of spell points the wizard can burn down constitution, but that's a desperate move and those points don't return as quickly.

Quote from: Simlasa;933619The author says it's being 'revised'.

Let's hope it's going to be a good game when it shows up again, preferably without too major changes from the old practices:).

QuoteThe saving throws vs. constitution are just for wizard spells that directly channel magical energy on the spot... not the material/prepared spells that finalize in the form of potions and such.

Are these the same as the "constant" spells estar mentioned?

QuoteThe spell points are an optional/advanced addition that has wizards and elves (I think) still rolling to cast, but using up spell points gained from level and dexterity (IIRC). Once out of spell points the wizard can burn down constitution, but that's a desperate move and those points don't return as quickly.

I see, thank you for the explanation;)!

Quote from: AsenRG;933629Let's hope it's going to be a good game when it shows up again, preferably without too major changes from the old practices:).

Yes, I think it's an interesting system with some fun ideas. I'm not sure how close it is to how Arneson did things... I think that's part of what is being revised in the face of new information.

QuoteAre these the same as the "constant" spells estar mentioned?

The spells that channel energy are Wizard Light, Lightning Bolt and Fireball. Cast them all you want but failing a roll vs. Con will put you on your ass for 2d6 turns.
Any other 'spells' in the basic rules are crafted in magical laboratories for later use. They have some physical form that can be carried till needed or sold/given to others. They're usually single shot (like a potion or a gas globe). So not 'constant', you'd have to go back to the lab once you used up your powder/potion/gas/whatnot.
There is no detailed list of components/recipes. Crafted spells have alignments and further requirements for use... and you don't know if you made the thing correctly till you try to use it.

The expanded rules include Elfin song magic, which uses spell points, and has access to all the basic spells but the songs take time to cast depending on their power and the person casting them.

Also, to stay on thread, there isn't a list of 'skills' but there is Education, which is open-ended option that gives a PC 1d6 specialty skills... like picking locks for a non-thief or creating a specific spell for a non-caster. There are also some interesting bits regarding Persuasion, available to the Merchant class and some magical items... social combat to make others do what you want.

Quote from: Simlasa;933636The spells that channel energy are Wizard Light, Lightning Bolt and Fireball. Cast them all you want but failing a roll vs. Con will put you on your ass for 2d6 turns.

That is consistent with 2nd edition Chainmail.

Quote from: RPGPundit;932745Which is your favorite?  Which do you really dislike, if any?

Favorite:
Roaming difficulty target number, roll 2D6 (with modifiers) equal to or higher.

Least Favorite:
Any linear die rolls used.

Despite its flaws what I think makes keep on going back to 0ed is that people have kept on trying to fix it by standardizing rules (which makes different kinds of actions seem samey) or by abstracting the environment (which makes the situations that players find themselves in seem samey).

Quote from: estar;933638That is consistent with 2nd edition Chainmail.

There is no CON roll in 2nd Ed. CHAINMAIL, at least not for Fireball and Lightning Bolt.

Quote from: Baulderstone;932918I find it interesting that some systems have the standard single d20 for combat rolls while skill rolls use multiple dice for a bell curve. I don't know if it is an intentional design, but it is interesting that you get more chaotic, swingy results from combat, but tend to get more more conservative results when simply using a skill.

In my case, it is intentional; I tend to dislike system that use d20 for skills AND combat because skills often rely on a single roll, and combat takes many rolls; therefore, if you sue the same system for both, combat will be a lot LESS swingy than skill, when the contrary should be true IMO (the level 10 wizard will beat the level 10 fighter in a fist-fight about 0.01% of the time, but the figther beats him in an arcana roll 25% of the time, for example).