Quote from: jrientsYou state that as if everyone is going to automatically agree that the concept was bad from the beginning.

More to the point I am criticising the "do what I say, not what I do" part of the EGG.

QuoteCrunchy weapon rules were a player-requested modification of Gygax's original "every attack does d6" method.  The psionics system was not a Gygax invention.  If you want to go after the man, please pick your attacks more carefully.

Not Gygax's invention? He claims to be the sole author of the PH and holds the copyright.

And the rest?

QuoteOkay, this one is just fucking ridiculous.  So Greyhawk doesn't light your jets?  Who the hell are you and why should I care?

Because it is contrary to the stated aim; that's all.

All I'm saying is that there is often a disparity between the advice that Gygax gave out in AD&D1e and the actual rules he developed.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteAll I'm saying is that there is often a disparity between the advice that Gygax gave out in AD&D1e and the actual rules he developed.

With all due respect to the guy, the hobby was still very new around the time he wrote AD&D1E.  He was probably feeling his way.

Quote from: KenHRI wonder how many people have skipped over that stuff.  It makes me sad to think about it in a way, because the text contains some of the best advice on player preparation and teamwork ever.  

Aye, and there's the rub. I think Gygax had some great insight, and while I'll keep my opinion on certain interpretations of the Master's words to msyelf, I think we can all agree that the old boy had the advice spot on.

But to the point I was making, all the good advice, forgeian mechanics, or anything else you want to throw into the game, will not do a bleedin' thing if half the nits who try to run it just throw all that away CARELESSLY!  That last word deserves special emphasis, because making  well-understood effort to change something is one thing, while skipping certain bits without thought is quite another.

To think of all the bad behavior in gaming that gets blamed on the D&D mindset, when it's really more about bad habits of bad GMs than bad advice in the book.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteCyborg Commando. Dangerous Journeys. Lejendary Adventures.

Which of these does not belong?

I know DJ and I've read LA. Both are solid designs. DJ suffers from being rushed into publication, but that's about it.

LA is basically a slimmed down, cleaned up DJ. You have three traits, with each skill being a percentage of one of the traits. So if a character's Mental Trait is 40, then that character's Mental Skills can range from 40 at 100% of trait, down to 4 at 10% of Mental Trait. No skill can be greater (over 100%) than its governing trait. An elegant solution to the problem of characters who are better than they really should be.

I thought LA was a pretty well-thought out RPG, FWIW.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI thought LA was a pretty well-thought out RPG, FWIW.

Maybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary".  I mean really, Gary should know better.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary". I mean really, Gary should know better.

:haw:

I compleatly agree.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary".  I mean really, Gary should know better.

Done for trademark purposes. Much like "Toys R Us".

Quote from: mythusmageDone for trademark purposes. Much like "Toys R Us".

It doesn't really matter what the reason was.  The end result is only one step above calling the game "Kewl Adventures".

If I ever design a Fantasy RPG, I SOOOO am going to call it 'Kewl Adventures!!'

I should call my RPG "Kuul Adventures".

Quote from: StuartI should call my RPG "Kuul Adventures".

And it shall have a chapter on spell casting titled "Majzhickq".

Quote from: droogGary must have had an embolism after that, because I clearly recall him crapping on in Dragon about how if you didn't use the rules as written you weren't playing D&D.

Indeed. The contradictory statements that one used to find in "The Sorcerer's Scroll" and some of the advice in the DMG wasn't bewildering, it was simply annoying to the nth degree. It did not generate the respect that comes from holding a consistent position.

Mind you, has anyone ever played the AD&D rules as they were written?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWith all due respect to the guy, the hobby was still very new around the time he wrote AD&D1E.  He was probably feeling his way.

I get that feeling as well; the DMG in particular reads like one first draft long monotype... I would have rather he'd written a shorter book and paid more attention to consistency, correct emphasis, conciseness, playability etc. Still, this is all ancient history now and the world has moved on.