Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PMthese are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy

What the fuck?  In my republic?  To Hell with that and them.

QuoteI guess he's talking about the dark enlightenment movement

I had no idea Curtis Yarvin is Catholic or OSR player
I meant specifically reactionary Catholic gamers, no just whole political movements.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.

Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.

But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.

I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.

House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.

As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.

Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.

But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.

I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.

House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.

As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.

I bet that people who weren't in the know; all assumed that 1E was his one true love, until the day that he died.  It was the big breakout success, that made him famous.

Quote from: estar on August 18, 2021, 01:45:33 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 18, 2021, 01:31:22 PMMaybe if you actually played more often, you wouldn't feel so constipated and cranky.

The Dungeon Delver may have strong opinions that I disagree with. But he plays and referee as much if not more than many of us, myself included. I can personally attest that he gave 5th edition a fair try a couple of years back as I refereed a game with him in it.

That may be so, I'll grant you that.

The problem though is that the attitude DungeonDelver is expressing turns people off of the OSR in particular and TTRPGs in general. Proclaiming from the rooftops that the Only Way To Play is the Gygax Way and you (or Old Geezer for that matter) are the Guardians of that One True Way doesn't grow the hobby as much as it gatekeeps the hobby. It is the opposite side of the SJW coin which declares that if you Do Not Play the Gygax Way, you are not a Real Gamer just like the SJWs declaring that if you do not stuff every last possible bit of Social Marxism into a product that is played then you aren't a Real Gamer.

I've gotten to the point where being called a Real Gamer is an insult. Sorry if I don't follow someone's lead like a good little Grognard Lemming.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 19, 2021, 01:15:28 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.

Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.

But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.

I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.

House ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.

As far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.

I bet that people who weren't in the know; all assumed that 1E was his one true love, until the day that he died.  It was the big breakout success, that made him famous.

The ones who care about what Gary Gygax's Favorite Game was do not view Gary Gygax as a human being, but as some kind of Avatar of their One True Way who must be placed upon a pedestal like a Russian Religious Icon.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 04:00:54 PM
There's nothing wrong with making money, but it wasn't JUST to make money.
As I point out in the video, one big part of the creation of AD&D rules was for TOURNAMENT PLAY at CONVENTIONS.

Another was to create some kind of 'official ruling' on all kinds of questions people pestered him with instead of house ruling for themselves.

But most of the rules in AD&D1e were not really rules HE used, and play at Gary's table never ever looked like AD&D1e Rules-as-written. They looked like 0e D&D heavily-modified.

I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible. Given how popular tournament play was at the time, you couldn't right well achieve that mission without giving a good deal of consideration to tournament play. But that doesn't mean tourney play was that large a part of 1E's being. The game was hugely popular beyond just the hard-core tourney gamers. It had massive appeal to people who never played in a tournament.

I definitely don't deny that 1e was very popular. I played a ton of 1e, back when it was the only edition of AD&D, and also during some of the 2e period (after a period of trying 2e and finding it not nearly as good). Even though my preference was for BECMI D&D, I still really enjoyed 1e, and the DMG was probably the single best GM's book ever written.

That doesn't discount the fact that the reason it had so many rulings in it was to make sure tournament play at Cons were all done to the same standard, minimizing the possibility of wide variations of house rules.

QuoteHouse ruling was always encouraged in 1E. That's emphasized repeatedly throughout the 1E books he wrote. When Gary calls for "some degree of uniformity," it is immediately explained as meaning "a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign." To me that sounds a lot like, "Hey, I don't want to have to explain what it means each and every time I say make a hit roll. So lets have some standard procedure for it." Everything about that is helpful, nothing about it is slapping down creativity.

The AD&D books are a bit multiple-identity when it comes to this; there are quotes you can pick out that talk about how the GM can modify whatever he wants or make up house rules on the go, and quotes that suggest that the rules should be strictly adhered to. The guys I was arguing with have the belief that anything that is codified as a rule in the AD&D books should never be altered.

QuoteAs far as what Gary ran, just because he ran 0E doesn't mean he didn't also run 1E. He ran the games he wrote. When he was selling Dangerous Journeys, he was running Dangerous Journeys. The last decade of his life, it was mainly Lejendary Adventure he ran. Although he found time to run two other RPGs. Yes, 0E was one of them. The other one was 1E. Yes, with house rules. I know a fellow who documented Gary's house rules for 1E. It was still recognizable as 1E.

1. AD&D was not the main thing he ran. Ever.
2. I can bet you anything that when he ran it, he never ever ran it strictly rules-as-written. Speaking as a game designer I can tell you that game designers never run their own games rules-as-written, because you write the rules as generalities to apply to the reader and for their ease, but your own campaign will always have variances.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 04:02:19 PM

Quote from: JeffB on August 18, 2021, 02:45:58 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 18, 2021, 02:24:28 PM
This has become a really good discussion.  Bravo!!!

Gary Gygax himself, was playing OD&D and starting characters at 3rd Level.

Those were his "front porch games" in the last years of his life. While he talked alot with us about D&D on DF, ENWORLD and the C&C forums, He mostly ran, promoted, and continued to work on his Lejendary Adventures Game (Troll Lord Games was pushing out plenty of the new revised LA books and adventures along with Castle Zagyg at the time of his death). 

But indeed, when he did run D&D, whether when he was at TSR, or late in life, he  certainly didn't play RAW.

I appreciate this insight.  Thank you.

FWIW- My sig quote for most forums I visit, is a direct lift from a convo I had with Gary on ENWORLD many moons ago


"Maybe I'm just getting too old to want to have to deal with a heap o' rules and the steaming heap o' rules lawyers who go with them."

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 18, 2021, 09:49:06 PM
I think this is all over-statement. The mission statement for 1E was to be as much fun as possible for as many people as possible for as long a time as possible.

Ah but how was that fun was to be achieved?

QuoteThe danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign, for it will either be a one-player affair or the players will desert en masse for something more challenging and equitable. Similarly, you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and will usually wither. Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with the many thousands of others who also find swords & sorcery role playing gaming an amusing and enjoyable pastime.

For how much tournaments were involved in the creative process again Gygax provides us with the answer.

QuoteReturning again to the framework aspect of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning — or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades.

All of this backed by the account and documents that have emerged since 2010 when folks like Jon Peterson started researching the early days of the hobby.

Wrapping it up
There is no one reason for why AD&D wound up the way it did. The answer is all of the above. Yes Gygax was concerned about making money. Yes Gygax and company were indurated by the 1970's equivalent of spam. Yes Gygax was more than  little ticked off by folk letting him how D&D ought to go. Yes parts of the AD&D  are pretty badly written and organized as a result of one part "it sounded good at the time" and one part "I really need to get this book done what can go in here". The worst sections are found in the last book the DMG.

And none of this takes away the fact that as a whole AD&D is a seminal work in the hobby. One that had an enduring impact and many of its distinct elements has endured the test of time to make it a classic that is still enjoyed today 'as is'.

AD&D was basically designed for 3 reasons

Strict control of the property- OD&D had gone off the rails and people were taking the game into areas Gary et.al were not comfy having the name D&D associated with. People who really believed in magic/the mystical and promoted it,  "weird sex stuff", those who thought he should have ZERO control over his game, etc.

A separation from Arneson's name (this ties back into strict control- whatever you think of the situation or Gary or Dave- Neither were ever going to be able to work together in the manner needed)

Tournament Play- Tim Kask mentioned it several times over the years- TSR were making money hand over fist with tournament play at the time. They (Gary, Brian, etc) saw that as their main avenue to financial success- thus AD&D and the RPGA.

As a businessman providing for his family, his employees, and making his investors happy? I don't blame Gary for any bit of it.

As a gamer, I don't always agree with the way he did things for AD&D and beyond.

*Chuckles* You speak of Jeffro and his silliness.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 17, 2021, 11:44:40 AM
The OSR can either be a golden age in design and play, or it can be a Cargo Cult of make-believe purity for a misunderstood past.

My vote is on 100% cargo cult.

So much cargo

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 19, 2021, 04:37:03 AM
I definitely don't deny that 1e was very popular. I played a ton of 1e, back when it was the only edition of AD&D, and also during some of the 2e period (after a period of trying 2e and finding it not nearly as good). Even though my preference was for BECMI D&D, I still really enjoyed 1e, and the DMG was probably the single best GM's book ever written.

That doesn't discount the fact that the reason it had so many rulings in it was to make sure tournament play at Cons were all done to the same standard, minimizing the possibility of wide variations of house rules.

What I was saying is that the aim was to have as broad appeal as possible. So if you have a part of it that is aimed at tourney play, that is to be expected and so is not necessarily evidence that therefore tourney play was the central purpose or even one of a handful of central purposes to the game. That's why I said I felt characterizing it as "for tournament play" is way over-stating the case.

Yeah, there are a lot of rulings in the DMG. In fact I often correct people that 1E does not really have a lot of rules. Most of what's in the DMG are rulings. And one of the things I point to to make the case that this is clearly so is how oddly specific the rulings are. Maybe it's just me, but I think if I were hashing out rulings for the sake of consistency in play, I'd probably be a lot more systematic about it. The way that it is such an odd collection gives me the impression that it's like, here are some things that came up in play, and here's a way to handle it that works.

And I think what heads off the potential argument of "Well, maybe these were things that came up in tournament play, here's what the referee decided, and this should be taken as juris prudence here on out" is the fact that there's a lot of stuff in the DMG that is clearly aimed at campaign play and is not very relevant to tourney play.

QuoteThe AD&D books are a bit multiple-identity when it comes to this; there are quotes you can pick out that talk about how the GM can modify whatever he wants or make up house rules on the go, and quotes that suggest that the rules should be strictly adhered to.

Right. And people have taken this as an opportunity to try to twist it into any old thing they want it to mean. The fact is, he did say both. And sometimes he said both within the same book. And sometimes he said both within the same section of the same book. And sometimes he said both in the same paragraph. And sometimes he said both in the same sentence. At some point, there needs to be acknowledgement that he didn't mean just the one or just the other. And he didn't necessarily simply have a change of heart over time. And he wasn't schizophrenic about it.

He meant both to be applied simultaneously. Almost as if this should be approached with some semblance of practicality and balance. And that, yeah, anyone who really wants to know what he was really saying might actually have to spend some time wrestling with the apparent contradictions. Which takes a lot more effort than quoting him out of context. So I'm not the least bit surprised that out-of-context interpretations is what is largely proliferated.

QuoteThe guys I was arguing with have the belief that anything that is codified as a rule in the AD&D books should never be altered.

I've argued with the zealots as well. And here's the thing I've seen. When push comes to shove, they really don't care about the Rules-as-Written. They're more concerned with there being a single, objective, correct answer to any rules question. The book is just a means to help them achieve that end. Which is why if you bring up, "But it says right here to change the rules" they'll dismiss THAT part of the rules because reasons, demonstrating their willingness to justify picking and choosing which rules to follow and which to ignore for the sake of getting to a place where there is only one correct answer.

QuoteSpeaking as a game designer I can tell you that game designers never run their own games rules-as-written, because you write the rules as generalities to apply to the reader and for their ease, but your own campaign will always have variances.

100% agree. I learned that lesson on my very first attempt at writing a module. The first encounter was with rats. And I wanted to show the world what an awesome GM I was. I wasn't going to have them just nibble away at hit points. No. What's really dangerous about contact with rats is the potential to contract disease. And I wasn't just call for a save or suck roll. No. My rat disease was going to be interesting. I was close to spelling it all out when I realized I'd just wrote 2 and a half pages, and this was just some stupid, low-threat, introductory encounter with rats. I deleted the whole thing and suddenly understood why their Monster Manual stats are what they are. I still did all that cool stuff when I actually ran it, but even my notes would have no mention of it.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on August 18, 2021, 06:48:17 PM

Quote from: SHARK on August 18, 2021, 02:19:19 PMFrom that achievement, most of the other "clones" followed, embracing various D&D versions, editing, and presentation. Again, opening up different perspectives and styles to a new audience and a new market. Mazes & Minotaurs, Essentials, LOTFP, and on and on. Why is this such a bad thing? Before these developments, the old books were not being reproduced, nor were they being expanded or added to in a broad commercial way.

The "bad thing" is the idea that these clones, and all the follow on games such as DCC, couldn't have existed without the OSR. When, in fact, these types of games were being made before the OSR was even a thing.

What I saw, from my experience defending old school gaming in the early 2000s on EnWorld, RPG.Net and the Necromancer forums, were a bunch of people coming in after the fact and restating what we were talking about as if they suddenly invented it. And then saying anything based on 3e wasn't pure enough to even be considered as having existed.

At this point, the OSR is just a marketing term attached to a purity test.

This ^^^^^

THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE I'M AT.