Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 01:25:01 PM
According to this, the standard for BD&D is to only ever play using the Basic Set -- and a group that uses the Expert Set is non-standard. Likewise, this means an AD&D DM who runs the Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil in the World of Greyhawk is running a non-standard game -- but a DM who runs using only PH+DMG  in his own weird steampunk setting is running a standard game.

I think that's backwards. Standard should mean what is typically done and expected. Most groups did *not* play using only the Basic Set or PH+MM+DMG.

Among other games - I'm not sure about Warhammer or Star Wars, but (for example) I know most people playing Traveller did not use just Books 1-3. It was far more common to run using further books including the Imperium setting. Similar is true for many other games. A GURPS game that uses (say) GURPS Fantasy would be standard.

Any campaign setting being used, other than the "assumed" one, is by definition non-standard, since groups will use different campaign settings, or homebrews. The PHB is the same everywhere, but a Dragonlance game and a Dark Sun one will likely be very different. The "assumed setting" of Greyhawk would possibly be the only Standard one by my definition (The Known World of Mystara in Basic, I think). Note also that if the DM changes the PHB at his discretion, we automatically assume that is non-standard and call it house ruling.

The Basic set thing is where this gets tricky, because I'm not sure if there was a plan to go all the way to 36th level right away, and the implementation in separate sets was how they wanted to do it, or if anything past 20th was decided on later, after the success of the earlier parts. What I am pretty sure of is that a group could absolutely play just the Basic set. It would mean retiring a lot more characters than normal, but still. The whole discussion breaks down however, when they introduce the Rules Cyclopedia collecting all the various sets into one coherent book.

As for GURPS, I can concede that generic systems essentially require an extra book in order to choose what genre you're playing. Here's where my minimum standard comes about. The minimum way to run GURPS Fantasy within the limitations of the ruleset is by having the GURPS core book and the GURPS Fantasy book.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on February 25, 2021, 03:25:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 01:25:01 PM
According to this, the standard for BD&D is to only ever play using the Basic Set -- and a group that uses the Expert Set is non-standard. Likewise, this means an AD&D DM who runs the Village of Hommlet and Temple of Elemental Evil in the World of Greyhawk is running a non-standard game -- but a DM who runs using only PH+DMG  in his own weird steampunk setting is running a standard game.

I think that's backwards. Standard should mean what is typically done and expected. Most groups did *not* play using only the Basic Set or PH+MM+DMG.

Any campaign setting being used, other than the "assumed" one, is by definition non-standard, since groups will use different campaign settings, or homebrews. The PHB is the same everywhere, but a Dragonlance game and a Dark Sun one will likely be very different. The "assumed setting" of Greyhawk would possibly be the only Standard one by my definition (The Known World of Mystara in Basic, I think). Note also that if the DM changes the PHB at his discretion, we automatically assume that is non-standard and call it house ruling.

But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on February 25, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
The Basic set thing is where this gets tricky, because I'm not sure if there was a plan to go all the way to 36th level right away, and the implementation in separate sets was how they wanted to do it, or if anything past 20th was decided on later, after the success of the earlier parts. What I am pretty sure of is that a group could absolutely play just the Basic set. It would mean retiring a lot more characters than normal, but still.

Here you're even saying yourself that it is "normal" for characters to continue past 3rd level. I think that "normal" and "standard" should mean roughly the same thing - the most common way(s) to play. Yes, it is possible for a group to play using only the Basic Set and retiring characters after 3rd level, but that isn't the standard.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on February 25, 2021, 03:25:50 PM
As for GURPS, I can concede that generic systems essentially require an extra book in order to choose what genre you're playing. Here's where my minimum standard comes about. The minimum way to run GURPS Fantasy within the limitations of the ruleset is by having the GURPS core book and the GURPS Fantasy book.

People can and do play GURPS without using a specific genre book, though. I have run a number of HERO system games using only the core book, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PMFor that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.

*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2021, 04:59:13 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PMFor that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.

*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.

OK, fair enough. Checking my copies, you're right that there's a *mention* of the drow in the Monster Manual under elf, but there are no stats for them. To nitpick back, though, I don't think the G modules predate the MM. My module G1 is copyright 1978 while the Monster Manual is copyright 1977.

The point is still that if a DM uses official drow stats (as in G3 or FF), then they are using non-standard material according to Bronze Dragon's definition.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 05:18:39 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2021, 04:59:13 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PMFor that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual.

*cough* *cough* look at the elf entry *cough* *cough*

The G and D series of modules predate the MM, which led to some weird half-mentions. The drow are mentioned in the MM's elf entry, though the full state writeup from the modules had to wait until the Fiend Folio came out. And both the mezzo- and nycadaemons, also from the FF, appeared earlier in the DMG's monster encounter tables, several magic item entries, and even are detailed in the section on flight.

OK, fair enough. Checking my copies, you're right that there's a *mention* of the drow in the Monster Manual under elf, but there are no stats for them. To nitpick back, though, I don't think the G modules predate the MM. My module G1 is copyright 1978 while the Monster Manual is copyright 1977.

Checking around, the G and D series were all released in 1978. They were the tournament modules at Origins (G) and GenCon (D) that year, or July/August, which is about 8 or 9 months after the first printing of the Monster Manual. The drow reference in the MM is vague enough and not really fully in accordance with the later version (weak fighters?), so it probably reflects the genesis of the idea, before it was fleshed out in the modules. OTOH the half dozen or so references to the daemons in the DMG are clearly based on the stats from the D series (dungeon level + maneuverability class ratings are too specific for a loose concept), though that was 1979 so it definitely post-dates the modules.

https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/monster.html
https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/g.html
https://acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/d.html

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 05:18:39 PM
The point is still that if a DM uses official drow stats (as in G3 or FF), then they are using non-standard material according to Bronze Dragon's definition.

Don't care about your bronze drow dick comparison.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 25, 2021, 10:27:44 AMI think people are conflating "Gygax's Q&A" with "Sage Advice," which was run by Jean Wells for a time and could poke fun at some of the questions received.

Agreed in that some are mixing up SA with what appears to be an online QA.

It does seem rather suspect. I know at least one White Wolf staffer who liked to get on forums and pose as TSR staff and spread all sorts of tales to make this or that person look bad. And theres been others since.

On the other hand while it seems very out of character for Gary. Totally would not surprise me he said that.

As for Jean Wells. She was not just poking fun at questions. She actually stated she did not like gaming and deliberately gave bad advice to discourage play. I've got alot of Dragon from that tenure and you can see the transition and wasnt just me who noted that the SA section was more than a little "off". I do though think she singled out the more oddball questions. Though we always wondered why they were even printed in the first place.

Others were just peculiar and we initially assumed it was just someone new on the staff unfamilliar with this or that. But after a brief span we all but stopped reading the Q&A/SA.

I really should dig out the issues and have a look through and see how things really went. I suspect, and hope, its not as weird as I recall.

Even the AD&D DMG has a little section on allowing players to play monster races and cautions about considering game balance and such before allowing something.

As for drow. In the MM the description made us believe drow were really just evil faeries. So we used the stats for pixies at first. 

addendum, its a not so little section in the DMG. Takes up a full page explaining why the setting is human-centric and the pros and cons of allowing monsters as PCs.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

Greyhawk is present in the core books with different levels of prevalence, depending on edition. Place names, spell names and descriptions, a standardized Pantheon, references of all sorts. Hence it being the assumed setting.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
Here you're even saying yourself that it is "normal" for characters to continue past 3rd level. I think that "normal" and "standard" should mean roughly the same thing - the most common way(s) to play. Yes, it is possible for a group to play using only the Basic Set and retiring characters after 3rd level, but that isn't the standard.

"Normal" based on what people expected before the Basic Set and pretty much every version of AD&D/D&D after that. They were already running campaigns where characters retired at higher, or much higher levels. However, the Basic Set can be run as a standalone game. As I said before, this argument becomes moot once the Rules Cyclopedia comes in and unifies BECMI.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
People can and do play GURPS without using a specific genre book, though. I have run a number of HERO system games using only the core book, for example.

I have never seen a GURPS campaign that didn't use something else to set its genre and/or setting. I DMed a GURPS WWII campaign, and I most certainly needed the WWII core book. I also added a bunch of relevant sourcebooks to expand the campaign. Could I have run WWII with just the GURPS Basic Set? Maybe, but goddamn, that would've been a gigantic pile of work.

QuoteIf the infant orc was not able to reason, the paladin would not slay it, possibly see to its care somewhere until it reached a state where reason was possible; but if and when the immature humanoid was able to reason, the paladin would make it swear its rejection of evil, confess its adherance to LG, and then execute it before it could recant. Thus the orc would be guaranteed acceptence in a more benign afterlife.

Cheers,
Gary

Makes perfect sense if the DM says that killing humanoid spawn is evil but killing humanoid adults is not. But of course SJWs think humanoids are blacks instead of cannon fodder for PCs, so I can see how this quote could spiral out of control. As per the DMG, monsters are of their alignment instinctually, so all orcs will default to their lawful evil alignment regardless of how they are raised, which means that letting them live is at best a chaotic act, as they will set about raping and killing as soon as they are left alone.

QuoteI am not going to waste my time and yours debating ethics and philosophy. I will state unequivocally that in the alignment system as presented in OAD&D, an eye for an eye is lawful and just, Lawful Good, as misconduct is to be punished under just laws.

Lawful Neutrality countenances malign laws. Lawful Good does not.

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good.

Gary

Gygax was talking about the imbecility of pacifism in the pulp fantasy/sci-fi/horror universe of AD&D.

Pacifism might seem rational in the context of a modern society where everyone lives in comfort and safety, and atrocities can be committed anonymously from a distance by using technology, but it is completely irrational outside of that context. Believe it or not, there are some that actually think it is inappropriate for a Catholic priest or a nun to carry a gun -- that they should just passively allow themselves to be murdered, or worse passively allow others to be murdered while they watch.

Given a typical AD&D game milieu, if you had two competing sects of LG, one willing to wage war and put enemies to the sword, and the other completely non-violent, the latter would quickly become extinct. It's Dungeons & Dragons, not Safe Spaces & Snowflakes.

The point of the quotes is that Gygax cannot and will not pontificate to every DM how to judge good, they must use their own judgment within the context of their own campaigns. The DM's own common sense trumps all other rules in AD&D 1e, and if he has a weird and wacky cosmology, then that's just the way it is and players have to work around it.

As to the philosophy upon which AD&D is predicated,

QuoteInspiration for all of the fantasy work I have done stems directly from the love my father showed when I was a tad, for he spent many hours telling me stories he made up as he went along, tales of cloaked old men who could grant wishes, of magic rings and enchanted swords, or wicked sorcerors and dauntless swordsmen. Then too, countless hundreds of comic books went down, and the long-gone EC ones certainly had their effect. Science fiction, fantasy, and horror movies were a big influence. In fact, all of us tend to get ample helpings of fantasy when we are very young, from fairy tales such as those written by the Brothers Grimm and Andrew Long. This often leads to reading books of mythology, paging through bestiaries, and consultation of compilations of the myths of various lands and peoples. Upon such a base I built my interest in fantasy, being an avid reader of all science fiction and fantasy literature since 1950. The following authors were of particular inspiration to me. In some cases I cite specific works, in others, I simply recommend all their fantasy writing to you. From such sources, as well as just about any other imaginative writing or screenplay you will be able to pluck kernels from which grow the fruits of exciting campaigns. Good reading!

-- Appendix N, Dungeon Masters Guide, p. 224

In the middle ages, if someone was arrested for say, heresy, and made confession and sought forgiveness, they would more often be spared than not, with the assumption being that obviously they'd face a terrible penalty should they repeat their former crime.

On the other hand, if someone were a murderer or a bandit, and they were captured, they could confess their sins and seek spiritual forgiveness, but they would usually (not always, but usually) still suffer the death penalty. The important difference from the medieval point of view was that by receiving confession, their immortal soul stood a good chance of not going to hell.

QuoteMakes perfect sense if the DM says that killing humanoid spawn is evil but killing humanoid adults is not.

No. Not really. If they are iredeemable, that's pointless distinction.

QuoteBut of course SJWs think humanoids are blacks instead of cannon fodder for PCs, so I can see how this quote could spiral out of control.

Thinking about anything as cannon fodder for PC's is bad GMing and bad worldbuilding for me.
Making bad excusions for cannon fodder existing with twisted logic is just stupid, and pointing this out has nothing to do with SJW.

QuoteAs per the DMG, monsters are of their alignment instinctually, so all orcs will default to their lawful evil alignment regardless of how they are raised, which means that letting them live is at best a chaotic act, as they will set about raping and killing as soon as they are left alone.

>Orcs by default LE
>letting them live - CHAOTIC.

Also if it's inavoidable instinct then there should be no problem with killing children.

QuotePacifism might seem rational in the context of a modern society where everyone lives in comfort and safety, and atrocities can be committed anonymously from a distance by using technology, but it is completely irrational outside of that context. Believe it or not, there are some that actually think it is inappropriate for a Catholic priest or a nun to carry a gun -- that they should just passively allow themselves to be murdered, or worse passively allow others to be murdered while they watch.

Well that's true. Eastern Orthodox norms are even harsher - priest who would kill even in self-defence would be defrocked. And that's correct. Christianity grows from blood of martyrs. And various people serves various purposes - religious folk lies down their arms as martyrs of old do. Of course that rule does not oblige - quite contrary - layfolk, and defending themselves - or priests even - is proper and lawful. This it TBH very important part of not only Christian but Traditional Lawfulness - various people have different taboos and different obligations.
And TBH D&D keeps vestige of those old customs - with this pseudmythical notion of clerics using only blunt weapons to not spill blood.

QuoteGiven a typical AD&D game milieu, if you had two competing sects of LG, one willing to wage war and put enemies to the sword, and the other completely non-violent, the latter would quickly become extinct. It's Dungeons & Dragons, not Safe Spaces & Snowflakes.

Well as adventuring PC's sure. As pacifistic agriculture cult tending to peasants in relatively peaceful kingdom - not necessary.

QuoteThe point of the quotes is that Gygax cannot and will not pontificate to every DM how to judge good, they must use their own judgment within the context of their own campaigns. The DM's own common sense trumps all other rules in AD&D 1e, and if he has a weird and wacky cosmology, then that's just the way it is and players have to work around it.

That's good that Gary does not try to force this weird philosophy on people - but that does not make it less bad philosophy and I still gonna criticize it.

QuoteIn the middle ages, if someone was arrested for say, heresy, and made confession and sought forgiveness, they would more often be spared than not, with the assumption being that obviously they'd face a terrible penalty should they repeat their former crime.

On the other hand, if someone were a murderer or a bandit, and they were captured, they could confess their sins and seek spiritual forgiveness, but they would usually (not always, but usually) still suffer the death penalty. The important difference from the medieval point of view was that by receiving confession, their immortal soul stood a good chance of not going to hell.

That's proper doing indeed. As in good scene in "Feast for Crows" ser Bonnifer Hasty said about potential repenting of banites he was hunting "

"I suppose you would forgive them, in my place?"

"If they made sincere repentance for their sins... yes, I would embrace them all as brothers and pray with them before I sent them to the block. Sins may be forgiven. Crimes require punishment."
"

I'd have no problem with paladins executing bandits (aside of fact that in most lands they would be overstepping on someone's elses duties without proper permission from rulers).

QuoteThinking about anything as cannon fodder for PC's is bad GMing and bad worldbuilding for me.
Making bad excusions for cannon fodder existing with twisted logic is just stupid, and pointing this out has nothing to do with SJW.

Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

Quote from: deathknight4044 on March 01, 2021, 07:16:55 AM
Do you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

First, a side-bar: Xenomorphs aren't villains any more than hungry wolves chasing a man through the woods are. They're threats, but not villains.

To the main question at hand though, the comment was that thinking about an entire race/culture as existing only to be cannon fodder is poor world building. It is.

Let's take the xenomorphs you brought up. Leaving aside that the first outing featured just one (making it anything but cannon fodder; it was a Freddy or Jason or Michael Myers); the writers didn't just grab a scary-looking piece of Geiger art and have it start attacking for no reason.

They gave it a parasitic life cycle where it needs to plant an egg in a host to reproduce. The sequel further establishes that it is only the queen that reproduces, the default xenomorph is essentially a soldier insect that exists to protect the queen and the hive.

So rather than just attacking without reason, the xenomorphs are a hive-based lifeform that attacks humans because it needs warm bodies to hatch their eggs and because when humans counter-attack they are threatening the queen/hive. Their biological drive to expand and need for human hosts makes them a threat. Their hive-based society means they respond to threats by throwing drone soldiers at them.

In other words there's more to them than just existing as sacks of xp for the PCs to mow down.

In a more practical real-world example. The entire term "cannon fodder" dates back to the 16th century when military commanders considered their soldiers as nothing more than food to be fed into the war machine to achieve victory. Men were called cannon fodder centuries before it applied to orcs or goblins or xenomorphs.

Was every German soldier in the World Wars just an irredeemable thing born and existing for no reason other than so that valorous allied troops could mow them down?

You COULD write a game or story where every German is an evil monster that fights because they hate everyone else and want them all dead and thus the only just thing to do is slaughter them to the last man, woman and child... but such a story would be shallow (or satire) at best, and more likely be seen as the ravings of a psychopath.

You could write a game or story where orcs are willless meat robots who exist only to kill all other lifeforms... but that's going to be shallow at best, and frankly, boring and beneath even the complexity of an old Saturday morning cartoon.

Even just adding "they were created by a wizard to get revenge/conquer the world" has more nuance (it also might make the orcs willless automatons lacking agency and destroying them regardless of their age... no morally different than smashing a tank on the assembly line before it can be used in war).

And that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker's point. Evil for evil's sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn't lash out for evil's sake, but from wounded pride and spite.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 01, 2021, 09:34:08 AM
And that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker's point. Evil for evil's sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn't lash out for evil's sake, but from wounded pride and spite.

In other words because he was the worlds biggest arsehole.

Quote from: Shasarak on March 01, 2021, 03:09:37 PM
In other words because he was the worlds biggest arsehole.

Basically, yes. One Catholic interpretation is that, as the mightiest of God's creations (a Seraph, the highest and closest to God) Lucifer expected to be gifted with the Hypostatic Union (a merger of God with a lesser being), but God instead chose to gift this union to Man, as He intended to enter His creation and experience it.

This incensed Lucifer to take up arms against God and declaring that he could be like God. Only a lowly archangel (second lowest choir of the heavenly host) had the courage to stand up for God against Lucifer. He fought the Great Serpent (seraph means serpent) and, by the power of God, cast Lucifer down with the finishing cry of "Who is Like God?"

For this act of faith the archangel was elevated to the highest place; replacing Lucifer as the chief of God's host and taking his new name from his cry to Lucifer... Who is Like God; Mika-el/Michael.

Lucifer was so wounded in pride and spiteful that he lashed out in a perfect supervillain "If I can't have it, no one can!" by approaching Man (again seraph means serpent) and tempting him to sin against God as well. Since God could only enter what is holy and pure Lucifer reasoned that God would thereby be denied Hypostatic Union with mankind (which require a virgin conceived without sin to fulfill God's desire to enter the world; not just to experience it now, but to redeem it) and he would continue to poison men against God, not because he had any hope of winning, but simply to tear as many souls away from God as he could because every man who chooses Hell over God causes God pain.

So, yeah, the greatest self-entitled asshole in Creation.

I ended up adapting the tale above as part of the cosmology of my setting, with a few additional elements. Lucifer became Lightbringer/The Demon Emperor; and Michael became Stormbringer, once a humble breeze spirit, who courageously entered the world conquered by the Demon Emperor, gathered a group of men, dwarves and even a rebellious malfean to form The First Adventurers who raised an army against the Demon Empire and faced the Demon Emperor (in the form of a dragon) in an epic battle that ended the Demon Empire's reign.

For this Stormbringer was elevated to leader of the primal spirits and the legend of the First Adventurers echoed down through history such that, whenever dangers threaten it is expected that the bravest and most capable will join together into a band of adventurers to protect mankind from the threat.

So not only do I get to incorporate one of my favorite tales into my setting; it is also the reason that Adventurers aren't seen as dangerous misfits by the people (as they would be in the genuine medieval period), but as a culturally acceptable occupation worthy of respect.

ETA: sidebar that the Catholic story above would make a kickass summer blockbuster in my opinion... I mean, the hero is an underdog who goes up against a massive dragon in the final battle. It practically writes itself.