Quote from: estar on August 19, 2021, 08:22:12 AM

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?

Your question seems to be asking what's the method. 99 times out of 100, that is a great question to pose in response to fluffy commentary about "just have teh funz." I've used it myself. But this is the other 1 out of the 100. Because what I'm talking about here is a mission statement. Andy Stanley put it best. "Date the model, but marry the mission." If you're really serious about the mission, you have to be willing to change models as needed.

An example from 1E would be Weapon vs Armor tables. If I've got a 7th level fighter with 18/50 STR and am using a +2 weapon, I need to roll an 11 to hit AC 0. So 50/50. If I've got a +2 or -2 adjustment due to Weapon vs Armor table, it's not really a game-changer. And if we've got a party of 5 similar characters and are going against a similar enemy party, that's a whole lot of look-ups to know the adjustment for all the weapon vs armor combos that come up in that fight. Basically, a lot of extra work. Next to no payoff. That's why most people end up dropping it.

But I was really inspired by Braveheart in the mid-90's. So I might have a battle that's 40 vs 40, 0th level humans, just about every member of each side using the same type of weapon and same type of armor, now I only have to do a total of two look-ups for these weapon vs armor adjustments. Not only that, if I've got a guy with a broadsword against platemail, the adjustment is -2, giving a 0th level character a 1 in 20 chance of hitting. But if instead the same guy uses a footman's flail, the adjustment is +2, giving that guy a 5 in 20 chance of hitting. This would make my men 5 times as effective. That's a major pay off. And for just two look-ups.

Different models for different play styles. And this is exact the sorts of things I see when I look at the 1E rules. And this is the exact sort of thing I found lacking in later editions of D&D.

QuoteYes 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.

I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.

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

A more accurate mission statement would probably have been "hide 30 minutes of fun in 4 hours of play"

QuoteYes 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.

I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.
[/quote]


If you consider that the AD&D DMG was literally the first of its kind, and without peer; it causes one to realize the magnitude of its impact.  It was a big swing for the fences, right out of the gate.

Go both ways. No worries.


Ye take the high road,
And I'll take the low road,
Sure I'll be in Scotland afore ye....

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 08:02:03 PM


100% agree. I learned that lesson on my very first attempt at writing a module.

Yes. I don't think I've ever even run one of my published adventures exactly the way I wrote them!

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 10:06:29 PM
Your question seems to be asking what's the method. 99 times out of 100, that is a great question to pose in response to fluffy commentary about "just have teh funz." I've used it myself. But this is the other 1 out of the 100. Because what I'm talking about here is a mission statement. Andy Stanley put it best. "Date the model, but marry the mission." If you're really serious about the mission, you have to be willing to change models as needed.

An example from 1E would be Weapon vs Armor tables. If I've got a 7th level fighter with 18/50 STR and am using a +2 weapon, I need to roll an 11 to hit AC 0. So 50/50. If I've got a +2 or -2 adjustment due to Weapon vs Armor table, it's not really a game-changer. And if we've got a party of 5 similar characters and are going against a similar enemy party, that's a whole lot of look-ups to know the adjustment for all the weapon vs armor combos that come up in that fight. Basically, a lot of extra work. Next to no payoff. That's why most people end up dropping it.

But I was really inspired by Braveheart in the mid-90's. So I might have a battle that's 40 vs 40, 0th level humans, just about every member of each side using the same type of weapon and same type of armor, now I only have to do a total of two look-ups for these weapon vs armor adjustments. Not only that, if I've got a guy with a broadsword against platemail, the adjustment is -2, giving a 0th level character a 1 in 20 chance of hitting. But if instead the same guy uses a footman's flail, the adjustment is +2, giving that guy a 5 in 20 chance of hitting. This would make my men 5 times as effective. That's a major pay off. And for just two look-ups.

Different models for different play styles. And this is exact the sorts of things I see when I look at the 1E rules. And this is the exact sort of thing I found lacking in later editions of D&D.

Weapons versus AC illustrates some of the weakness that Gygax had.
It originated from the Man-to-Man weapon table in Chainmail. It wasn't in the 3 LBB of OD&D, but reappeared as part of Greyhawk. A factor (I believe was subtracted from the original 2d6 target value and used as a modifier to a 1d20 rolls. So if you needed a 12 on the chainmail table it was -4 to your to-hit roll on the Greyhawk table.

So that was a bit wonky but otherwise the principle idea was still good. Largely because OD&D armor class mirrored Chainmail's Man to Man armor categories. AC 9 was nothing, AC 7 was leather, AC 5 was chain, AC 3 was plate. +1 if you had a shield.

But then AD&D PHB came along. Now Armor no longer had neat categories. Now there were intermediate steps like Banded being AC 4. However the Weapon versus AC was lifted straight from Greyhawk, and the additional weapon types were added. Some values were shuffled around to account for the fact that AD&D started at AC 10.

Now the values made even less sense in relation to the armor types they were good against.

Now this not a criticism about idea that AD&D attempts to model the fact that some weapon are better against certain armor. Overall idea is solid if you want that level of detail in a D&D system. The problem was how it was designed and implemented. It doesn't feel like it received more than a moment of consideration.

When I came up with my version for my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I did some research, considered the implications, playtested my ideas, and then added to the draft rules. Then tweaked further. Instead of a table, I opted to focus on the most significant factor and made it part of the weapon description. For example Warhammers get a bonus against Plate armor as that why they started to appear on the medieval battlefield. To be clear I am not claiming that I write better than Gary Gygax. But I will gladly claim I wrote a better researched, a better playtested , and easier to use version of how D&D weapons work against armor.

But other parts of AD&D have the feel that they were well considered and refined through actual play. So I am only critical of AD&D in part.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 19, 2021, 10:06:29 PM

QuoteYes 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.

I don't think this gets to be an automatic yes without debate. Pundit just mentioned in his response that he feels the 1E DMG is one of the best game master resources ever made. I think it is the best by far without even a close second. Gamers don't agree on a lot of things. Love of this book has an unusually high level of agreement. If 1E is badly written and poorly organized, and if the DMG bore the brunt of that, then something isn't adding up. Maybe we've got some backwards priorities, or maybe the gamer aesthetic compass is just broken and should be ignored. Or maybe the DMG just plain got it right.

Tell me how initiative works in AD&D RAW. I am not being sarcastic, explain to everyone how one of the most important parts of one of the most important subsystem in the game is supposed to work as written.

As for poorly organized, at least in my neck of the woods, the AD&D DMG was legendary because you could re-read it even after using it for years and still find something you have not seen before. Most of the time the stuff was cool.

My point that the DMG is great, a work of genius, but has it flaws. Flaws that originated because of goals and approach that Gygax took. What it gets right, really gets right. Which is why it and its echoes still persist to today as part of the hobby. But the flaws that are there have reasons as to why they exist. And from my point of view learning about why the flaw exist for me make what he got right all the more special and make his story more human.

Quote from: estar on August 20, 2021, 12:18:09 AM
Tell me how initiative works in AD&D RAW. I am not being sarcastic, explain to everyone how one of the most important parts of one of the most important subsystem in the game is supposed to work as written.

The best way I can answer your question without straying off topic is this: When I was first learning to play, I started playing by some extremely simple core rules. Best as i recall, I knew how to make hit rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, find secret doors, and avoid traps. And I'm pretty sure that last one I just plain made up. Most important, I knew what hit points were. Through play, there are certain questions that will naturally start to come up. You go back, look at the rules. Often times, you will find they have a solution. You assimilate that rule into what you're doing. Rinse and repeat. In this way, there is never a huge hump to overcome for beginners.

And that's how initiative works. First, with a simple core. Each side rolls d6, highest goes first. Then as questions naturally arise, we begin making rulings. Depending on how you group and count them, 1E enumerates about a half dozen exceptions to that rule. Learn them as you go. Personally, I happen to really like the rulings, so I use the initiative system 100% as written. But you can use them or don't use them to taste.

I think 1E does this better than modern games. It seems like the game is put together in layers. Not necessarily as a united, finely oiled machine. But this means you can also take it on one small bite at a time. If I had to swallow the game whole all at once, I agree that 5E would be easier to choke down than 1E. And I think that's a fact a lot of gamers will hang their hats on. But since 1E has never even come close to asking to swallow the whole thing at once, this is not a measure I find at all meaningful. I consider it a silly place to hang a hat.

Now in terms of words and chapters, the 1E DMG definitely does have a rhyme and reason to it's organization. The best way I know how to characterize it is it's organized according to what's going on in your game right now.

For instance, if I want to know everything there is to know about a merchant galley, I have to go back and forth between a few different sections. What's it's hull value? That's in the waterborne adventures. How long would it take to circumnavigate the world? Outdoor movement. How much does it cost to buy one? Shit, hand me the PHB. What is the crew like? Back to the DMG, hirelings section.

But if what we have going on in the game right now is planning a wilderness trek from point A to point B and we're deciding whether to go aboard a galley ship, fast horses across the plains, or take a short-cut on foot over rough terrain, you don't have to flip back and forth to each and every means of conveyance. All the daily mileage is listed on a single page in the DMG. If what we're doing is engaged in is war or piracy on the high seas, the relevant stats for all the ships are right there in one section.

We can agree or disagree on whether this was the best way of organizing the book. But then you have to admit what you're talking about is a matter of taste, not flaws.

QuoteAs for poorly organized, at least in my neck of the woods, the AD&D DMG was legendary because you could re-read it even after using it for years and still find something you have not seen before. Most of the time the stuff was cool.

Finding new things on re-reads is something that's going to happen when you have densely-packed information. I don't know that part has very much to do with organization, or lack of organization, at all. However, whether or not the new "discovery" strikes you as cool, though, I think that may have something to do with the organization.

One time when I was reading through a list of siege hit modifiers, I suddenly began to imagine a knight on horse back racing through a battle field, dodging ballista and catapult fire, to reach the enemy siege engines. If the game had been organized differently, if instead these modifiers had been in the horse stat block in the monster manual--easier to hit because of their size, but harder to hit when running full tilt due to their speed--it wouldn't have triggered the same ideas.

QuoteMy point that the DMG is great, a work of genius, but has it flaws. Flaws that originated because of goals and approach that Gygax took. What it gets right, really gets right. Which is why it and its echoes still persist to today as part of the hobby. But the flaws that are there have reasons as to why they exist. And from my point of view learning about why the flaw exist for me make what he got right all the more special and make his story more human.

When I was a child, I was exposed to Dungeons & Dragons and the story of John Henry. And right now, I'm spending my time answering your post rather than hammering up on a mountain somewhere trying to defeat a machine at its own game. This is perhaps because I'm more moved by a good game than I am by stories about small triumphs in the face of the inescapable doom of human frailties. If you wish to look at the DMG and see small wins wrapped in tragedy, have at it. When I crack it open, it's because I'm looking for a great game.

Pundit sells rulebooks for a living.  Clones give away rulesets for no profit.  Pundit isn't a prolific adventure module author.  Clones exist to give prolific adventure module writers a legal safe harbor to continue supporting the older rulesets they're cloning. 

The conflict of interest isn't rocket science, even if it's never explicitly laid out. 

Quote from: EOTB on August 23, 2021, 01:33:26 AM
Pundit sells rulebooks for a living.  Clones give away rulesets for no profit.  Pundit isn't a prolific adventure module author.  Clones exist to give prolific adventure module writers a legal safe harbor to continue supporting the older rulesets they're cloning. 

The conflict of interest isn't rocket science, even if it's never explicitly laid out.

1. many clones sell as commercial products.

2. I've written about 40 adventures. I'd say that's pretty goddamn prolific. It's way more than the average.

You've been bitching about straight clones for over a decade - since there weren't many clones and all of them were available for free. 

I can't find dozens of adventure modules from you.  If you've starting including those with your recent PDF zine then so be it; the swiping at clones predates that by a decade. 

So you admit that both your points were wrong. Great.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
[The best way I can answer your question without straying off topic is this: When I was first learning to play, I started playing by some extremely simple core rules.

That nice and appreciate the personal anecdote. But it avoids the answer to my question which is germane to my point about the DMG organization and clarity, and why it is a brilliant work with serious flaws.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
Depending on how you group and count them, 1E enumerates about a half dozen exceptions to that rule. Learn them as you go. Personally, I happen to really like the rulings, so I use the initiative system 100% as written.

So again, I ask, explain the AD&D initiative rules? I will be up front it a gotcha question. You could refuse to answer in which case I will lay out exactly why that section (among others) is unclear, why, and how people know this.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
But you can use them or don't use them to taste.

Well if you don't use the initiative rules then you are not playing AD&D per Gygax.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
I think 1E does this better than modern games. It seems like the game is put together in layers. Not necessarily as a united, finely oiled machine.

As I said, AD&D has its strengths, I concur with this. And the strengths vastly overshadow the flaws particularly the PHB. However that not my point.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
We can agree or disagree on whether this was the best way of organizing the book. But then you have to admit what you're talking about is a matter of taste, not flaws.

I took technical writing in college and it been part of my professional career for over four decades training and developing metal cutting machines for machine shops. The goals of any technical writer is clarity, and organizations. While there several ways of achieving this they all hover around these goals. One can judge a technical reference by these standards and find it either lacking or well-done.

However RPG books are hybrids. They are only in part technical references. How the rules are presented can be judged on clarity, organization, and utility. Note I said presentation, which has little do with how the mechanics function as a system. In short are the rules explained well or are they not.

The reason RPG books are hybrids is that they contain advice, utilities, and sometimes setting details. Advice is perhaps the most free form in terms of organization. All needs is clarity and Gygax's advice in the DMG was very well-written.

Utilities in my view are tools used to make running a RPG easier, but not a crucial part of the system. Encounter tables are a good example of something that is a utility for RPG. The section of different types of government is another. Utilities benefit from organization but it not as crucial as rules. What utilities are best for a given RPG is a judgment call. Overall Gygax did a great job in the DMG and the rest of the AD&D line.

There is not a whole lot of setting details in AD&D so it not relevant. What there is more flavor that inspires and Gygax does a good job with this especially with the artifacts. Just enough to get a sense of what it about, but leaving you wanting more.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
Finding new things on re-reads is something that's going to happen when you have densely-packed information. I don't know that part has very much to do with organization, or lack of organization, at all. However, whether or not the new "discovery" strikes you as cool, though, I think that may have something to do with the organization.

Wasn't the same with GURPS and a few other equal detailed RPGs. 

One time when I was reading through a list of siege hit modifiers, I suddenly began to imagine a knight on horse back racing through a battle field, dodging ballista and catapult fire, to reach the enemy siege engines. If the game had been organized differently, if instead these modifiers had been in the horse stat block in the monster manual--easier to hit because of their size, but harder to hit when running full tilt due to their speed--it wouldn't have triggered the same ideas.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 20, 2021, 07:10:12 PM
If you wish to look at the DMG and see small wins wrapped in tragedy, have at it. When I crack it open, it's because I'm looking for a great game.

Man, just because several section have serious issues does not mean I view it wrapped in tragedy. Just because Gygax had less than stellar motivations other than the love for the game and sometime prone to lazy design in creating it doesn't mean it filled only with small wins. This things make its triumph all the more magnificent and just as important human. The parts it got right, it really got right. And that doesn't count as a small win.

So how about that explanation on AD&D initiative?

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 01:45:35 AM
1. many clones sell as commercial products.

And the ones you are most critical about have a open content document that available for free as well as commercial products.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 06:59:54 AM
So you admit that both your points were wrong. Great.

Actually you said

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 23, 2021, 01:45:35 AM
1. many clones sell as commercial products.

EOTB replied

Quote from: EOTB on August 23, 2021, 04:16:40 AM
You've been bitching about straight clones for over a decade - since there weren't many clones and all of them were available for free. 

Not sure what you are reading there Pundit but

1) What clones have been released for the past decades also available for free or have freely usable open content. My own Majestic Fantasy RPG sit in between a clone (I use a fair amount of S&W 'as is') and it own thing. And I have a open content SRD available.

2) For the rest, while compatible with the classic edition, focus on their own take much like your recent RPGs. So while commercial, classic edition compatible, they are not clones. And again like my Majestic Fantasy RPG, many of these have open content that other can use, or are fairly open about 3rd party licensing.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
I think you have it backwards. Those factions of the OSR feel the need to denigrate me. 

This started on Twitter specifically because someone was looking for people to show up on a youtube interview about Old-school gaming, and the guy who wrote Secrets of Blackmoor was kind enough to publicly recommend me.  Cue Jeffro Johnson and Rick Stump and the "BroSR" idiots, coming along to attack me for not being a "true Old school gamer" (as well as, they claim, a massive leftist; you see, because I'm not Catholic and don't believe that Democracy and the principles of the American Revolution were a horrible mistake, like they do; these are literal paleocons who believe in restoring literal absolutist monarchy and moving our entire civilization back to the dark ages... sound like any terrorist organization starting with a "T" to you?).

So.....

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.

Yes sound very much like the two situations are equivalent. To be clear I am being sarcastic.

Instead of focusing on the part that you feel is a societal threat, you instead talk about it in a way that promote your commercial interests based on your particular take on how to handle the classic editions. Using the fact these yahoos happen to also play classic editions 'as is' as the connected thread. How very Tucker Carlson of you.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
The fact that the Clonemaniacs of the past were equally bigoted against any game that wasn't just a Clone game until they were outmaneuvered by the early 2nd wave (something that was almost inevitable, because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions, you eventually run out of old editions) is also something your selective editing is notably avoiding.

First off B/X Essentials which became Old School Essentials first published in 2018. So much for outright clones being old hat in the OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 18, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
because when all you're allowed to do is remake literal copies of old editions,

Right, I guess all those times we corresponded about the Open Game License and open content during Arrows of Indra didn't sink in.

Of course you don't care about the whole history of open content in the OSR because it is much more convenient to complain that the clonemaniacs controlled the "medium" crowding the alternatives as McLuhan put it. Yup those clonemaniacs had control of Lulu, Yuku/Proboard (forum software), ISPs, Blogger/Wordpress, so that absolutely nobody could get a word in edgewise unless the Lords of the Clones permitted.

Come on, who are you trying to bullshit with statements like these?

It not like examples are to hard to find with material like Hoard and Horde out there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUFmadXbg67pp9dEu_KsLc2-2Gf-0t5mVOvzetAqdFw/edit#gid=0

Material like Carcosa was being released as early at 2008. And while controversial, the controversy wasn't over the fact it wasn't a straight clone. My own Majestic Wilderlands was released in late 2009. The only reason we didn't have a flurry of alternative releases in 2007, because the d20 SRD still was the goto for most independents (like Castles and Crusades, did earlier). And because everybody was waiting with baited breath on the hammer to fall on OSRIC from Wizards. Throughout 2008 it was becoming clear that wasn't going to happen and more folks started to get involved.

As I documented, you all but ignored the OSR until Stuart Marshall called you a neener, that was followed by a long series of critical posts on clonemaniacs ignoring the expansion of folks were doing in the early 2010s. Then finally after being called out enough times, you got off your ass and did Arrows of Indra, which I encouraged and helped with.

And the sky didn't fall in, Arrows sold more than a few copies.