TheRPGSite

So, I was watching a review of D&D 5E on YouTube and the host did this thing about how he got started through AD&D and then played 2E in college, yadda yadda, and mentioned that he cannot play those games anymore. He really liked 5E (which I do, too). Then, yesterday on G+, I was reading a post and had the same thing about how AD&D was great and helped them get hooked into the hobby but he could never play it anymore. This made me realize that I hear from a lot of people (online) sort of the same thing. It makes me feel like an odd duck because I still really like AD&D. I got started on 2E but what my friends and I play is AD&D. When I go to Nexus Milwaukee or Gary Con, I play AD&D. I go to Half Priced books regularly looking for product. Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

Because they're dumb enough to be embarassed at playing an old elfgame.

Hint. If you play elfgames, you're already uncool. No one gives a shit whether it's something that came out last week, or in the 70s.

Quote from: The Butcher;845310(http://pigroll.com/img/fucking_hipsters.jpg)

dead link...

... because like in so many aspects of our culture, people are conditioned to want only the New and Improved version of anything.

It isn't just with AD&D.  I've been quirking my brow for thirty years or more at the various Edition Wars across the hobby, and my comment of "So hang on.  You hate the new edition.  You like the old edition.  The old edition still does everything it did when you bought it, and you've still got it.  The gaming company hasn't sent a hit squad to confiscate your copy.  What in the merry hell prevents you from continuing to play it?" has almost always fallen on deaf ears.

There are people who apologize for liking Alf and Vanilla Ice. Those things aren't sexy, unless you happen to like them in some sort of hipster way, which means you actually think they're terrible and your admiration is just thinly disguised derision. Then there are other people who really don't give a fuck what some asshole on the internet thinks and still watch Alf reruns and listen to Ice Ice Baby without a pretentious bone in their body.

My guess is the Youtube and G+ people are just trying to look cool by saying they don't like AD&D, but also remain inclusive by saying they used to play it. Sounds like what a politician would do.

I personally think that AD&D is a bit clunky. I like it, even though I have no particular nostalgia for AD&D (actually, I found quite inaccessible when I started with RPGs), but compared to the often more streamlined games of the last decades or so, it has all these almost arbitrary side rules and most importantly, limitations. Classes and abilities are a lo more rigid when compared to newer games, and I personally think that these limitations can feel a lot more restrictive if you are not used to them anymore. Call it an entitlement issue if you like, but the later versions of D&D offered quite a few more liberties (multi-class options come to mind).  

Also, not caring too much about mechanically balancing as the holy grail of game design almost guarantees that it does not pander at all to the  optimisation crowd, who tend to be loud and dogmatic (you know, the people who craft characters and optimise them for white room scenrarios, and usually talk about actual RPGs like manically masturbating virgins talk about sex).

Quote from: Ulairi;845314dead link...

Ah well. It was a fun image.

Replaced with text.

Quote from: Beagle;845335I personally think that AD&D is a bit clunky... Classes and abilities are a lo more rigid when compared to newer games... Also, not caring too much about mechanically balancing as the holy grail of game design almost guarantees that it does not pander at all to the  optimisation crowd...

Clunky, rigid, unbalanced, but above all 'flat' are the standard critiques in my neck of the woods. Flat because non-caster characters don't gain all the kool powarz they get in later editions.

For the record, I'd run it no problem if asked.

To answer the question of the post rather than the title: AD&D is fantastic at being AD&D. If you want to do anything else, and can get your players to go for it, there are probably numerous other systems on the market that do it better.

  To answer the thread title: Certain folks have made a lot of noise to the effect that 99% of all *D&D players after 1983 or so (at the latest) have been Playing the Game Wrong, so folks may be a bit ashamed at having sinned against the Great Gygax. :)

   (Note: Almost all my gaming in the past 12 months has been either AD&D 2nd Edition or BECMI, with a group that has predominantly not played them before. The chief complaint--by an overwhelming margin--has been the inconsistency of the rules system. Yet even the player who's been most vocal about this says that the game still fundamentally works.)

Quote from: Ulairi;845308So, I was watching a review of D&D 5E on YouTube and the host did this thing about how he got started through AD&D and then played 2E in college, yadda yadda, and mentioned that he cannot play those games anymore. He really liked 5E (which I do, too). Then, yesterday on G+, I was reading a post and had the same thing about how AD&D was great and helped them get hooked into the hobby but he could never play it anymore. This made me realize that I hear from a lot of people (online) sort of the same thing. It makes me feel like an odd duck because I still really like AD&D. I got started on 2E but what my friends and I play is AD&D. When I go to Nexus Milwaukee or Gary Con, I play AD&D. I go to Half Priced books regularly looking for product. Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

Wanna be hipsters trying to be "avengers of everything" showing their RPG.net butt-hurt while thinking those who play games they don't like should bow and lick their boots for them bringing us their "enlightenment." What they really need is more hard dirty work to occupy their time.

I'm not a fan of AD&D, but I don't think I've ever actually played it. That is, we played a game using the AD&D books, but we ignored a lot of the rules and made up a lot of house rules to fit it to what we liked.  Now I like B/X and its various relatives.

I'd run AD&D2e, but without any proficiencies and splatbooks.

In my mind those two are the worst offenders in the game. Proficiencies were optional but kind of mandatory, as they were used in 'official' events. And splatbooks, because they made a huge mess out of the system, much like D&D3.x.

But I can't foresee that I actually would run it. There are better systems for the genre.

I played ADnD loads way back when in the early 80s.
I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time.
The last time I played it was probably the late 80s and I was getting kind of tired of it and had moved onto other RPGs (Runequest, Rolemaster etc).

I expect if someone wanted to run it, I'd probably have a laugh with it, if only for nostalgic reasons, but maybe I'd be into it again, I dunno.

When I see an old ADnD DMG, MM, PHB etc in a shop or wherever, the good  memories come flooding back.

I'll just stick with 1e AD&D. After 30+ years of playing it, I like to think I'm pretty good at it, in much the same way I am with playing the piano, speaking Chinese, or whipping up a really good bowl of chili. One thing about gamers who hate it...every day they're talking about how to convert something from 1e to whatever later edition they think is better while I've never heard a 1e gamer ask how to do the opposite.

I ran a 2nd edition campaign last year.  I would up ignoring so many of its rules that by the end of the campaign, I was annoyed that I hadn't just used Labyrinth Lord + the AEC classes instead.

That's why I could never go back to AD&D: OD&D's better.

I just don't give a fuck what people think of my gaming. I still love my d6 Star Wars, Mekton II and Zeta, Basic D&D/Labyrinth Lord, and all the flavors of Traveller. Newer shit is just that, new - it is not necessarily better.

Quote from: jeff37923;845396Newer shit is just that, new - it is not necessarily better.

Even if one could prove newer shit is objectively better than what I'm playing, that does not mean it would be better for everyone.  For example, I think that average combat encounter in a RPG should last 5-10 minutes (and I consider any that last over 20 minutes to be way too long) and I have no interest in minis games in the middle of my RPG. Therefore, even if one could prove that D&D 3.x or D&D 4e were objectively far better than 0e, B/X, BECMI, and 1e system-wise, they still would not be better for me as combat in 3.x and 4e takes far longer than I enjoy and generally needs minis/markers and battlemats which I have no interest in using.

I play what works best for me enjoyment-wise. Others should play what works best for them. It really doesn't matter what anyone outside the group of people you are playing with think about the RPG you choose the play. If only twenty people in the world like the game I play and five of them are playing in my game what does it matter that thousands of people play games X, Y, and Z? Or what does it matter that thousands of people think the game I play is something outdated and worthless and something that only people they consider stupid play? Neither I nor the players in my game need their approval to have fun, after all.

I apologize for nothing. It would be like apologizing for fucking Atari 2600 Combat.

I loved the fuck out of AD&D 1st Ed back in the day. I played it with teens (My own age) and college kids and middle-age dudes (Older than me). Good times, good times. Being into 1st ed Ad&D in the eighties was like losing your virginity to Labyrinth-era Jennifer Connelly. Over and over and over again.

As much as I cherish D&DV and playing today, it's not any "Better" than it was in 1985. RULES DON'T MATTER... they're just the house you throw your party in. Dungeon Master  creativity, enthusiasm, and storytelling skills and player enthusiasm are more important than the rules every single day. I once  played in a 2nd Edition AD&D game ran in a  rotting low-income housing project and DM'ed by a meth-head that had more pure energy and fun and creativity and role-playing and drama than anything anybody ever did with FATE. Back in May I ran an D&DV "Free RPG Day" event for a local comic-book store and the players were all super-hyper and into it and I felt like I was riding the third rail of a subway train. The "rules" faded into soft background noise and almost became irrelevant.


RULES. DO. NOT. FUCKING . MATTER.

I'm drunk, forgive me if I'm rambling.

Quote from: Ulairi;845308Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

When it came out, AD&D was a big fish in a small pond. In the 30 years hence hundreds if not thousands of games have been published to cater to everyone's tastes. And everyone has different tastes.

The only problem is when people start confusing their personal tastes with objective quality.

People get embarrassed by weird shit.

It wasn't until the 1980s that Model Railroader magazine's editors and audience both stopped being embarrassed by being grown men (and some women) playing with toy trains.  Really, especially in the 50s, some of the "how to talk about your hobby" stories are genuinely painful to read.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845423People get embarrassed by weird shit.

It wasn't until the 1980s that Model Railroader magazine's editors and audience both stopped being embarrassed by being grown men (and some women) playing with toy trains.  Really, especially in the 50s, some of the "how to talk about your hobby" stories are genuinely painful to read.

Dude. Check your facebook. ;)

Quote from: Beagle;845335like manically masturbating virgins talk about sex).

From "The Temple of the Eager Virgin," a bonus level goodie for my Kickstarter.

Quote from: benoist;845425dude. Check your facebook. ;)

:D :D :D

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845423It wasn't until the 1980s that Model Railroader magazine's editors and audience both stopped being embarrassed by being grown men (and some women) playing with toy trains.  Really, especially in the 50s, some of the "how to talk about your hobby" stories are genuinely painful to read.

And that's a key to it.  I've never contemplated it at quite that angle before, but you're right: the surest way to sabotage any proselytizing is to be ashamed of your hobby.

Quote from: tenbones;845407I apologize for nothing. It would be like apologizing for fucking Atari 2600 Combat.

I'm Canadian, I apologize for inflicting Justin Beiber on people.

But my gaming?  Mine.  I don't care who whines about how uncool it is.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;845410I loved the fuck out of AD&D 1st Ed back in the day. [...] Good times, good times. Being into 1st ed Ad&D in the eighties was like losing your virginity to Labyrinth-era Jennifer Connelly. Over and over and over again.

AD&D 2e fan here, but the sentiment is shared.

I lament that I have only 500 characters to give for my signature.

And remember, if anyone gives you shit about it just quote Jennifer at them, "You have no power over me!"

Embarassed for playing AD&D? Never! Not even for Skills & Magic!

It was a great deal more fun than playing 3e, lemme tell ya!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845423People get embarrassed by weird shit..

THE PALEOLITHIC DUDE WHO PLAYED WITH GYGAX IS RIGHT!:cheerleader:

Quote from: tenbones;845407I apologize for nothing. It would be like apologizing for fucking Atari 2600 Combat.

This should only EVER be done if Adventure got jealous and was feeling neglected.

Quote from: Ulairi;845308Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

Outside of the pursuit of novelty players are traditionally driven by desire of more power, within a certain limit, and more importantly character customization. Also having rules make sense is a small but important factor for some.

Understand this is not about whether objectively AD&D doesn't or does have customization, whether it rules does or does not make sense. It about preferences, tastes, and preconceptions.

The other thing to keep in mind that people understand RPG concepts when it is explicitly modeled as part of the rules.

With AD&D higher power level is achieved through through more magic items which has been criticized over the years as playing "Monty Haul". Tacking on more character abilities is viewed as a more acceptable of taking the game to a higher power level.

However the primary reason why players move on from AD&D is character customization. In my experience most players don't crazy with this but nearly all player want to tweak or distinguish their characters in terms of game mechanics in some way. A fighter that can stealth, a magic user that can use a sword, a thief that knows a spell or two, etc.

Last in AD&D some parts of combat were not well explained or well designed by Gary Gygax. Particularly the initiative system and unarmed combat. It was bad enough that in my experience the way people actually played AD&D was to use in effect B/X (BECMI) combat with AD&D stuff (classes, spells, etc).

Coupled with Armor Class, Level, Hit Points and other AD&D abstractions a small but significant number of gamers looked to other system that made better sense from their point of view. Early examples are Runequest, Chivalry & Sorcery, and Rolemaster.

Starting with 2nd edition and especially with 3.0, D&D started to effectively address the most important issue of character customization along with increasing character power through the game mechanics.

The root of the problem is that despite his genius Gary Gygax forgot to include or didn't clearly explain how he handled these issues. From what we know now, he addressed all of these issues in developing D&D. That the abstractions of D&D do make sense when you understand what they represent.

For example, 1 hit dice used to roll hit points represents the amount of damage an experienced fighter can withstand. A hero is worth four experienced fighters and gets 4 hit dice, a super hero is worth eight experienced fighters and thus gets 8 hit dice.

Hit dice got turned into hit points by rolling a d6 adding or subtracting a modifier based on class. Later the class modifier got dropped in favor of using different dice.

The same with Armor Class, and other D&Disms that people criticize.

One nice thing about the OSR that all of this is now in the open and explained in a variety of ways. More importantly it has been shown through actual play that classic D&D campaigns can be run that are every bit as rich and detailed as what can be run in Runequest, Ars Magica, Numeria, Harn, etc, etc.

Of course because the OSR is a niche of the hobby this knowledge isn't that widespread. However it is readily available for anybody who does even a minimal effort looking up how to play AD&D. And there is a wealth of AD&D compatible product for all types of play styles. So the situation for AD&D is pretty good right now even tho we still have to put up with old preconceptions.

Quote from: Kellri;845389One thing about gamers who hate it...every day they're talking about how to convert something from 1e to whatever later edition they think is better while I've never heard a 1e gamer ask how to do the opposite.

That because up to the early 2000s, AD&D 1st was pretty much down to the diehards who loved it for it own sake. Then afterwards it started growing again with a better educated fanbase along with a bunch of authors, including you, who were adept at explaining or making useful products for the game.

You know, people don't have to be trendy hipsters to dislike AD&D. I've played it more than any other RPG, but when I have a choice these days I play another version of D&D. The butthurt over gamers criticizing AD&D is just as childish as claiming only the newest games are any good. One form of resentful nerdfury doesn't cancel out another, it only adds to the nerdfury in the hobby.

After about twenty years not playing or refereeing any RPGs, I've recently dusted off my AD&D 2E material and introduced it to my two pre-teen kids.  To my surprise and delight, they love it and I hope that, even if they don't pursue the hobby beyond something they do with their dad every Sunday afternoon, they still remember the experience as something that was pure fun.  At which point I shall no doubt put the books back into the loft and return to the wilderness!

D&D got me into the hobby.  I went on to AD&D 2E and once I discovered Ravenloft my players never went anywhere else!  The game worked for me then and it works for me now.  I see no problem with it :)

(Nice to be here, by the way.  I've been out of the RPG loop for so long and, even if I don't know half the games that everyone's talking about here, it's just nice to contribute to a forum about a subject that I love so much.)

I don't apologize for AD&D, I just avoid it. We played it because it was what we had. better came along and I never looked back. Some of the setting material is still good. The rules though were a mess. So many walls. I preferred 3E and I now prefer Pathfinder. I'm not looking for 'new & shiny' (Pathfinder is hardly new), I am looking for what works for me.

Quote from: estar;845511That because up to the early 2000s, AD&D 1st was pretty much down to the diehards who loved it for it own sake. Then afterwards it started growing again with a better educated fanbase along with a bunch of authors, including you, who were adept at explaining or making useful products for the game.

What does this: 'Then afterwards it started growing again with a better educated fanbase', actually mean?

Never having played AD&D, I can't say.  I stick with OD&D.

Quote from: Brad;845331There are people who apologize for liking Alf and Vanilla Ice. Those things aren't sexy, unless you happen to like them in some sort of hipster way, which means you actually think they're terrible and your admiration is just thinly disguised derision. Then there are other people who really don't give a fuck what some asshole on the internet thinks and still watch Alf reruns and listen to Ice Ice Baby without a pretentious bone in their body.

My guess is the Youtube and G+ people are just trying to look cool by saying they don't like AD&D, but also remain inclusive by saying they used to play it. Sounds like what a politician would do.

"I played A D and D but I did not inhale."

Quote from: Ulairi;845308Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

I think it's because they've been stripped naked and forced to march on the uneven cobble streets of TBP, as a dressed-in-drag McClennan and Ettin shout out "Shame!" and Shannon Appel rings a bell, all for the sin of liking the unapproved Advanced Elfgame and its "random prostitute" table.

Quote from: Paraguybrarian;845717I think it's because they've been stripped naked and forced to march on the uneven cobble streets of TBP, as a dressed-in-drag McClennan and Ettin shout out "Shame!" and Shannon Appel rings a bell, all for the sin of liking the unapproved Advanced Elfgame and its "random prostitute" table.

That's the funniest shit I've seen in days.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845652Never having played AD&D, I can't say.  I stick with OD&D.

My recollection from before I gave away my AD&D books is it was a lot like OD&D+Grayhawk+Blackmoor+Eldrich Witchery+some Dragon articles+a bunch more rules.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845627What does this: 'Then afterwards it started growing again with a better educated fanbase', actually mean?

I can't speak for Rob, but what that means for me is that those people who had been playing 1e AD&D for a few decades started explaining exactly why they liked that particular iteration of D&D and how it worked for them. Before the arrival of internet forums to discuss those kinds of questions most discussion was limited to rpg magazines which were more often than not limited to whatever was the newest thing.

One good example of that was how to handle combat. A lot of folks were just handwaving certain aspects or ignoring others entirely due to misunderstanding what was admittedly obtuse in the 1e DMG. Once 1e forum discussion started happening in earnest, one of the first things to come about was clear and concise guidelines on how to handle combat - particularly in regards to initiative, rounds and segments, and movement into and out of melee for instance.

Another real eye-opener for a lot of people was discussion and debate about just what a well-designed 1e AD&D adventure ought to be and how that differed from 2e or later 'storypath' style adventures. A minimalist (or nowadays OSR) approach went from being criticized as something backwards or lacking in depth to a worthy goal that allowed for more, not less, creative freedom.

So, in many respects, that kind of discussion about how to play and design new material for 1e AD&D took it out of the realm of just being an old collector's-only nostalgia trip into a vibrant, living game that should be enjoyed on its individual merits without references to it requiring some kind of fix from a later edition.

Oh, and just for the record...when we were working on OSRIC, I insisted on a table for random 'red-light encounters', and I ended up writing all of the city-based encounter tables largely so I could brag about that little bit of AD&D-ism later. I wrote it while holed up in an infamous red-light flophouse in Phnom Penh and it was pretty much exactly what I was encountering every time I left the room. At one point, I was interrupted by a drunken Irishman literally pissing on my door. On another occasion, at 4AM, I had to muscle my way up the stairs past two men in drag who were interested in lifting my wallet, my pack of cigarettes and my mobile phone. Shortly after I finished, I rolled a spliff to celebrate. In minutes I had the hotel manager and 3 ice-whores pounding on the door to bitch about the smell. So, yeah...if Appelcline and his flunkeys don't like it, they can all get fucked. I was only writing what I know.

Quote from: Paraguybrarian;845717I think it's because they've been stripped naked and forced to march on the uneven cobble streets of TBP, as a dressed-in-drag McClennan and Ettin shout out "Shame!" and Shannon Appel rings a bell, all for the sin of liking the unapproved Advanced Elfgame and its "random prostitute" table.

* Orson Welles slow clap *

Quote from: Nexus;845732That's the funniest shit I've seen in days.

Quote from: Paraguybrarian;845717I think it's because they've been stripped naked and forced to march on the uneven cobble streets of TBP, as a dressed-in-drag McClennan and Ettin shout out "Shame!" and Shannon Appel rings a bell, all for the sin of liking the unapproved Advanced Elfgame and its "random prostitute" table.

Yup.  Pretty much that.

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif)

Quote from: Tetsubo;845627What does this: 'Then afterwards it started growing again with a better educated fanbase', actually mean?

Kellri answer does a good job of making the point I was getting at.

The interest in D&D genesis, the internet allowing dozens of people sharing a niche hobby to communicate easily, and increased actual play; there developed a sense of the possibilities of AD&D and what it excelled at. And what made it stick was the internet allowing this information to be easily accessed by anybody with a minimum of effort.

All of this applies to OD&D, B/X, and BECEMI as well.

Quote from: Brad;845331There are people who apologize for liking Alf and Vanilla Ice. Those things aren't sexy, unless you happen to like them in some sort of hipster way, which means you actually think they're terrible and your admiration is just thinly disguised derision. Then there are other people who really don't give a fuck what some asshole on the internet thinks and still watch Alf reruns and listen to Ice Ice Baby without a pretentious bone in their body.

My guess is the Youtube and G+ people are just trying to look cool by saying they don't like AD&D, but also remain inclusive by saying they used to play it. Sounds like what a politician would do.

I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

Quote from: estar;845798Kellri answer does a good job of making the point I was getting at.

The interest in D&D genesis, the internet allowing dozens of people sharing a niche hobby to communicate easily, and increased actual play; there developed a sense of the possibilities of AD&D and what it excelled at. And what made it stick was the internet allowing this information to be easily accessed by anybody with a minimum of effort.

All of this applies to OD&D, B/X, and BECEMI as well.

You and I had very different internet experiences. Sure, us AD&D folks talked about the game on Usenet. As soon as 3E was released though, AD&D fell by the wayside. I didn't see an actual 'split' in the gaming community until 4E hit. When I learned quite recently that there had been a 1E/2E split I was baffled. No one I know ever played 1E again after 2E was released.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799This isn't politics, it's evolution.

It's not evolution. It's just a different system, designed by different guys, which you happen to like better that what came before it.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

Horseshit.  It's DIFFERENT, not better.

I've played Pathfinder.  It sucks intergalactic moose cock and swallows.  And Star Wars d20 was even worse, and NOT just because d20 was a bad fit for Star Wars.  More rules is not always better.

"Oh, no, my belly burst and I died because I didn't take "KNOWLEDGE: TAKE SHIT". "

Yeah, what Bren & Gronan said.

Happily D&D is moving away from "as many rules as possible" atm. :)

3.x/PF introduced a lot of ideas like feats, prestige classes, and a multiclassing system that combined to make a very player facing character optimization game.  When you can expand the sales base from just GMs to players and get them to buy things like Player's Handbook 2 and 3, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, Complete Arcane, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Equipment and so on, it just makes sense that WotC and Paizo have done wwhat they have with their game.

TSR tried to do likewise in the latter 2nd Ed days, but I don't think it was nearly as successful given the missing player facing optimization mechanics.  AD&D 1st Ed had far less of this commercially driven design, but had its own greed taint in the royalty wrangling between Gygax and Arneson and it's one true way marketing in the face of massive OD&D heterodoxy.

Once real money entered the situation, marketing-driven design was inevitable.

At some point, everybody who wanted old style D&D had it.  At that point, you either shut the doors or do something different.

I don't mind that some people like other games more.  I mind them claiming that their game is somehow "better" in any way other than "I like it more."

Quote from: Brad;845331There are people who apologize for liking Alf and Vanilla Ice.

How can people apologise for liking Alf? It is comedy gold.

Quote from: Benoist;845425Dude. Check your facebook. ;)

By the way, are you back for keeps Benoist? I'd like it if you were. You don't know me, but I liked a lot of your posts.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

My first RPG was RQ2, then AD&D. I liked AD&D but loved RQ. When 3E came along, we looked at the new rules for clerics and thought "Hey, that is like how RQ does it". But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric.

If 5e is an "evolution", maybe the Creationists are right.

Quote from: Spinachcat;845868If 5e is an "evolution", maybe the Creationists are right.

Anyone who uses "evolution" in the sense of "improved" is presenting a Creationist argument anyway.

The idea that evolution is an arrow, that starts with "primitive" species and progresses up through more "advanced" species (exemplified by that famous sequence of images showing an ape turning into a caveman turning into a modern man), is just Victorian Era Creationist sophistry to explain why Man is at the top of the evolutionary ladder (there isn't a ladder), and is thus naturally and innately superior to the "primitive" animals.

The idea that creatures from some arbitrary time in the past are somehow inferior is garbage -- dinosaurs were just as perfectly adapted to their environment as the wolves of 10,000 years ago were to theirs.

Evolution is far more specific and messy than that. It's adaption to a specific environment. And once something's in a niche, it's rarely displaced. We still have sharks, for instance, and they haven't been supplanted by whales. Creatures rarely displace other established creatures. What happens is that, over time, the evolutionary toolbox grows; and new creatures with new traits evolve to exploit new niches.

OD&D is the shark. Perfectly adapted for what it does. D&D 4th edition is just filling a new niche, and it's adapted to that purpose. Neither is superior, and anyone who uses evolution argue the more recent game is somehow better is just a scientific illiterate.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845799I'm one of those YouTube people. I post daily vlogs (six+ years and counting) and put up a RPG related video every Saturday. I *loved* AD&D when I played it. Then something better came along, 3E. I never looked back mechanically. You couldn't pay me to play an earlier edition of the game. Just reading the rules now makes me shudder. So many pointless walls and inconsistent systems. This isn't politics, it's evolution.

I'm the complete opposite. 3E made me stop playing because the focus moved away from playing a character, the adventure, and all of that and onto building character builds. I got started with 2E and we play stuff from both editions. I think the only thing 3E has over Ad&d is that it's not 4E.

I just like that I can have a player create a character and not screw themselves or the party by doing it wrong.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845823Horseshit.  It's DIFFERENT, not better.

I've played Pathfinder.  It sucks intergalactic moose cock and swallows.  And Star Wars d20 was even worse, and NOT just because d20 was a bad fit for Star Wars.  More rules is not always better.

"Oh, no, my belly burst and I died because I didn't take "KNOWLEDGE: TAKE SHIT". "

You and I want very different things from a game. I thought Star Wars D20 was one of the best sci-fi games ever written.

Quote from: soltakss;845844My first RPG was RQ2, then AD&D. I liked AD&D but loved RQ. When 3E came along, we looked at the new rules for clerics and thought "Hey, that is like how RQ does it". But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric.

This: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845875You and I want very different things from a game. I thought Star Wars D20 was one of the best sci-fi games ever written.

And as long as "objectively better" never comes into it, I'm perfectly good with that.  I like beer much better than I like Scotch.  Doesn't mean beer is objectively better than Scotch, or vice versa.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845877And as long as "objectively better" never comes into it, I'm perfectly good with that.  I like beer much better than I like Scotch.  Doesn't mean beer is objectively better than Scotch, or vice versa.

Or that Zima is a step up the evolutionary ladder...

Quote from: Ulairi;845308So, I was watching a review of D&D 5E on YouTube and the host did this thing about how he got started through AD&D and then played 2E in college, yadda yadda, and mentioned that he cannot play those games anymore. He really liked 5E (which I do, too). Then, yesterday on G+, I was reading a post and had the same thing about how AD&D was great and helped them get hooked into the hobby but he could never play it anymore. This made me realize that I hear from a lot of people (online) sort of the same thing. It makes me feel like an odd duck because I still really like AD&D. I got started on 2E but what my friends and I play is AD&D. When I go to Nexus Milwaukee or Gary Con, I play AD&D. I go to Half Priced books regularly looking for product. Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

When someone says they don't play D&D anymore, it's because they outgrew it. Either they got family and kids now, or they moved on from the simple D20 that kids start their RPGing from.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845877I like beer much better than I like Scotch.  Doesn't mean beer is objectively better than Scotch, or vice versa.

They are complimentary. You chase a scotch with a beer.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;845882When someone says they don't play D&D anymore, it's because they outgrew it. Either they got family and kids now, or they moved on from the simple D20 that kids start their RPGing from.

Or they're an utter rampaging fuckmorton who wants to sound "too cool for D&D," and can tongue my pee hole.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845877I like beer much better than I like Scotch.

Depends on the beer...and the scotch. I like both, but I've had some of each that tasted so bad I wouldn't even piss on the brewery to put out a fire.

Quote from: TristramEvans;845879Or that Zima is a step up the evolutionary ladder...

Zing!

We used to have a neighborhood horseshoe tournament where the prize for the worst team was a six pack of warm Zima that the losers had to drink.

Nah. Any type of scotch is inferior to even the cheapest domestic beer ;)

Quote from: Moracai;845912Nah. Any type of scotch is inferior to even the cheapest domestic beer ;)

I had one Scotch I really liked in Seminary.  Mine host told us he was happy to find several bottles of it for "ONLY" $200 a bottle.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845916I had one Scotch I really liked in Seminary.  Mine host told us he was happy to find several bottles of it for "ONLY" $200 a bottle.

I've paid upwards of 2000 for a bottle of 30 year Brora (and that was me getting a deal). But Im the sort who only drinks twice a year at best

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;845916I had one Scotch I really liked in Seminary.  Mine host told us he was happy to find several bottles of it for "ONLY" $200 a bottle.

My price point on Scotch is somewhere south of $200. But depending on the rate of inflation, that Scotch is cheaper on a per drink basis than Dom Perignon which my wife, who has had Dom, tells me actually does taste four times better than Veuve, Moet, and Tattingers.

Quote from: TristramEvans;845917I've paid upwards of 2000 for a bottle of 30 year Brora (and that was me getting a deal). But Im the sort who only drinks twice a year at best

$2000 :jaw-dropping: Dude, you are wayyyy out of my price bracket for alcohol.

Quote from: Bren;845923$2000 :jaw-dropping: Dude, you are wayyyy out of my price bracket for alcohol.

It was a special occasion, just after a business I'd started turned profit for the first month. I'm not sure I'd do it again unless I happened to get a sudden windfall.

But what something is worth is completely a matter of personal perception. My GF will drop a grand on clothing like its nothing and I feel put out just to spend a hundred or two once or twice a year when they're a necessity, meanwhile I'll easily spend hundreds a month on miniatures and books without batting an eye.

Quote from: Bren;845809It's not evolution. It's just a different system, designed by different guys, which you happen to like better that what came before it.

I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

We've had thirty some years of experience now, some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical.  Yes, some people like the old systems, and there's nothing wrong with that, but other people want something more, something that fits how they've changed.  Every new edition IS an evolution.  It's not perfect, it's not 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

And secondly, Evolution is not some clean process, mother nature teaches us that.  She sticks mutations on us and sees what happens, if the species survives!  Great, keep at it.  If not, oh well, not meant to be.  Seriously, it's a slapdash affair at the best of times, and it doesn't always remove bits that don't need to be there.  Like say, the human appendix.  That little organ has not been needed for millennia, and yet the little bugger is still there, causing humans problems from time to time.

I suppose it could be considered evolution, insofar as natural evolution doesn't always give desireable or even semi-decent results.

Like pandas.

That's 3e & 4e - pandas. Result of evolution, yes. Good, no.

Happily 5e returned D&D to form.

Quote from: The Ent;845942Happily 5e returned D&D to form.

I love this, because it actually borrows so much from 3e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845955I love this, because it actually borrows so much from 3e.

Sort of, I kinda concede the point, but 5e uses the 3e stuff in a very different way from 3e...anyway could've been so much worse, could've borrowed from 4e instead...but then, even 3e > 4e by a lot.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845876This: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

I don't know, but that's how I felt. It was a long time ago, so I can't really remember why.

We carried on playing AD&D for a year or so, after we say 3E and did not use 3E at all.

Quote from: The Ent;845956Sort of, I kinda concede the point, but 5e uses the 3e stuff in a very different way from 3e...anyway could've been so much worse, could've borrowed from 4e instead...but then, even 3e > 4e by a lot.

Well for those of us who played 4e there are plenty of unmistakable traces of it present, but what you don't know won't hurt your opinion. ;)

Quote from: TetsuboThis: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

Quote from: soltakssI don't know, but that's how I felt. It was a long time ago, so I can't really remember why.

We carried on playing AD&D for a year or so, after we say 3E and did not use 3E at all.

I don't mean this as dismissively as it's going to sound, but perhaps rather than an objective sense of atmosphere what you really had was a sense of comfort, momentum and/or nostalgia?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;845980Well for those of us who played 4e there are plenty of unmistakable traces of it present, but what you don't know won't hurt your opinion. ;)

...probably :D

Like with the 3e-derived stuff, I can kinda see it, but it doesn't bother me :)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

Who is this "we" you speak of?

The core idea the same? I don't think so. I play OD&D, AD&D, and B/X when I want to simply play a fantasy game of exploration.

I play 3.X when overcome by the need to masturbate over how many bonuses I have and what my character can accomplish mechanically, which is seldom these days. Perhaps I'm just getting old, or maybe I grew up, not sure which.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939We've had thirty some years of experience now, some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical.  Yes, some people like the old systems, and there's nothing wrong with that, but other people want something more, something that fits how they've changed.  Every new edition IS an evolution.  It's not perfect, it's not 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

If every new edition is an evolution then logically after 4E we would be WAY off from what we recognize as D&D by now, but somehow that didn't happen. The fans spoke up and D&D "evolved" back toward the direction of AD&D. It didn't get anywhere close to it, but the path certainly deviated from its projected target going from 2E to 3E to 4E.

D&D has an identity. It comes with certain things that some people don't care for but that without, starts to lose that identity. WOTC discovered that trying to evolve D&D into a completely different animal leads to an evolutionary dead end.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.

Go ahead and take exception. I don't care. It just shows that you are one more in a long line of ignorant young whippersnapper who don't understand what evolution is, but wants to use a four syllable, brainy sounding word to justify your liking something new and shiny.

QuoteAnd secondly, Evolution is not some clean process, mother nature teaches us that.

"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Quote from: Bren;846015"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Ah, bless, don't they sound cute, sometimes?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

If it was really "evolution," no designers would be involved. Instead, each edition of D&D (or any game) is an example of "special creation" as a designer or designers select what will or will not be included and write it as their personal/committee vision.  Games don't "evolve" they are designed.

Quote from: Bren;846015Go ahead and take exception. I don't care. It just shows that you are one more in a long line of ignorant young whippersnapper who don't understand what evolution is, but wants to use a four syllable, brainy sounding word to justify your liking something new and shiny.

Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Whatever, not here to change anyone's opinion.  I have better things to do that get mad at the internet.

Quote from: Bren;846015"mother nature teaches"...that is just too, too precious.

Oh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.  Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?  Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?

Quote from: RandallS;846037If it was really "evolution," no designers would be involved. Instead, each edition of D&D (or any game) is an example of "special creation" as a designer or designers select what will or will not be included and write it as their personal/committee vision.  Games don't "evolve" they are designed.

Assuming you're not actually being pedantic, what you're saying that unless it's done by a natural process and not by human hands, nothing has actually 'evolved'?

That's not what English says

Quoteev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions

    1.
    the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
    synonyms:   Darwinism, natural selection
    "his interest in evolution"
    2.
    the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
    "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
    synonyms:   development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding;

Definition 2 sounds exactly like what D&D has done over the last 40+ years.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Definition 2 sounds exactly like what D&D has done over the last 40+ years.

You've clearly been using "evolution" to refer to the biological process (even that ludicrous "mother nature" comment), and then you trot out a non-technical dictionary definition as "proof"?

Even accepting the loose analogy (RandallS is absolutely correct that the term does not strictly apply to game design), you clearly have no idea how evolution actually works. Evolution is not a process of improvement over time. It's a process of adaptation to specific environments. The idea that liveforms evolve from primitive organisms to more advanced organisms was the superimposition of the invisible hand of God on the process, in an attempt to make it more palatable to god-fearing Victorians. So you're not only more than a century out of date, you're actually using a Creationist argument.

You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

Quote from: Pat;846055You've clearly been using "evolution" to refer to the biological process (even that ludicrous "mother nature" comment), and then you trot out a non-technical dictionary definition as "proof"?

Even accepting the loose analogy (RandallS is absolutely correct that the term does not strictly apply to game design), you clearly have no idea how evolution actually works. Evolution is not a process of improvement over time. It's a process of adaptation to specific environments. The idea that liveforms evolve from primitive organisms to more advanced organisms was the superimposition of the invisible hand of God on the process, in an attempt to make it more palatable to god-fearing Victorians. So you're not only more than a century out of date, you're actually using a Creationist argument.

You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

Becareful because he fucking loves science.

(http://pre13.deviantart.net/7b3e/th/pre/i/2012/076/1/2/oh_my_glob__by_tsubasaangel-d4t0g68.jpg)

Rant forthcoming

Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

AD&D provided a certain gaming experience. That's not the same experience provided by 3e, 4th ed, or 5th. They are all different games! They do different things, they support different tastes. Just because some later edition came along and provided something more to a specific person's taste in what they want from an RPG to support thier individual playstyle, it oesn't mean that game is "superior"  from any PoV that isnt self-absorbed and placing one's own playstyle on some ridiculous pedestal. Some people prefer the gaming experience provided by earlier editions. If you want to judge everything by the standards of how OD&D was meant to be played, every edition since has been continuously failing more miserably! But instead you have people who are getting arrogantly dismissive of Gygaxian D&D for not being Mearls D&D.

And then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors? Hyperbole much?

I dont like AD&D. I dont like classes, I think alignments are stupid, I think the magic system is un-evocative and arbitrary, and I find the Star Trek-approach to monsters bleeds everything interesting, unique, and resonant from folklore and mythology out of them into some Terry Brooksish Milquetoast. I think levels and XP are way too gamey, the whole conceit of a "dungeon" destroys any of my suspension of disbelief, and it annoys me that the stat ratings have no real world equivalents.

I could name over a hundred RPGs Id rather play than AD&D.

And NONE of that means its a bad game. Because I'm able to recognize the difference between subjective personal preferences and objective facts, a capacity that seems to be rarer online than unbiased journalism.

The purpose of a game is to have fun. If AD&D provides that for someone, then the game has 100% succeeded, no qualifiers necessary. If it doesnt, theres tons of other games to chose from. But when I dont have fun playing Poker, but I have fun playing Hearts, I dont think to myself "Oh Hearts is a frikkin evolution of poker. Hell, why does anyone play with suit cards anymore at all anymore now that Magic: the god-damn Gathering exists? Derpa Derpa Doo Evolution!"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Dismissing idiocy is time efficient. Fortunately others responded point by point to your comments.

QuoteOh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.

1. I'm older than most people on this forum. Gronan and Chirine are the only two I know are older than me.

2. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were young, but have it your way. You are old and ignorant.

QuoteHave you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?

It's obvious that you at most took a look. I'm not particularly interested in figuring out which flavor of ignorant you are.

Quote from: Pat;846055You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

I'll just +1 all of your post.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

+1 to your whole frickin rant as well.

QuoteAnd then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors?

And this was just too good not to repeat.

Quote from: Ulairi;846056Becareful because he fucking loves science.

I love good wine. That doesn't make me a wine maker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846040Yes, yes, yes, dismissing other people's opinions without considering them is oh so smart.

Dismissing idiocy is time efficient. Fortunately others responded point by point to your comments.

QuoteOh to be young and ignorant again, I miss those days.

1. I'm older than most people on this forum. Gronan and Chirine are the only two I know are older than me.

2. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were young, but have it your way. You are old and ignorant.

QuoteHave you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is?

It's obvious that at most you only took a brief look. Otherwise you couldn't be quite so clueless. You sound like a Victorian Social Darwinist or maybe a Scientologist, but frankly I'm not particularly interested in figuring out which exact flavor of wrong about evolution you happen to be.

Quote from: Pat;846055You analogy worked fairly well when you said "they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game" -- which acknowledges a change, in response to a change in the environment. But arguing that old stuff is "clunky and frankly nonsensical" and new stuff is superior because of "evolution" is ascientific garbage.

I'll just +1 all of your post. And thank you for taking the time to respond to Christopher's nonsense.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Its a game! Its not science, its not nature! Different games provide different experiences! Monopoly isnt an evolution of chess! Settlers of Caatan's existence doesnt invalidate the fun of playing Risk!

+1 to your whole frickin rant as well.

QuoteAnd then trying to back up this asinine lack of self awareness with inept pseudo-scientific metaphors?

And this was just too good not to repeat.

Quote from: Ulairi;846056Becareful because he fucking loves science.

I love good wine. That doesn't make me a wine maker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;845939I take exception to this.  It IS evolution.  Simply for two reasons, the first is the obvious, it might be done by 'new guys' but the core idea is the same, they just took what they knew worked and changed it to fit how people think now, when we game.

We've had thirty some years of experience now, some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical.  Yes, some people like the old systems, and there's nothing wrong with that, but other people want something more, something that fits how they've changed.  Every new edition IS an evolution.  It's not perfect, it's not 'right' or 'wrong', it just is.

And secondly, Evolution is not some clean process, mother nature teaches us that.  She sticks mutations on us and sees what happens, if the species survives!  Great, keep at it.  If not, oh well, not meant to be.  Seriously, it's a slapdash affair at the best of times, and it doesn't always remove bits that don't need to be there.  Like say, the human appendix.  That little organ has not been needed for millennia, and yet the little bugger is still there, causing humans problems from time to time.

"What I like is RIGHT!  And what you like is WRONG!"

If D&D has undergone an evolution, then 3rd edition was was a shark turning into a lump of festering shit.

Give it up, dude. Different games are different, not better.  I think 3E sucks so hard the skin comes off my dick; it is a prime example of everything wrong with game design, from "a rule for every fucking ridiculous thing no matter how trivial" to Skip Williams' stated goal to "protect players from the whims of arbitrary game masters."

Oh, look, Christopher Brady just evolved into the newest member of my Tongue My Pee Hole list!

Really, the last person to grind out that "My version is OBJECTIVELY better!" was that assmonkey Topher.

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Rant

"+1" doesn't quite articulate the degree of agreement at work here. If I were a billionare I'd build a huge frickin' laser cannon, put it in orbit and carve your rant on the fucking Himalayas.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846099Really, the last person to grind out that "My version is OBJECTIVELY better!" was that assmonkey Topher.

Hey! I'd finally managed to forget that dude, and then you come 'rounds reminding me of the guy like this! Thanx a lot, dude! :rolleyes:

(:D)

A thought: Was D&D a victim of its own success?

  I'm not just referring to the oft-cited fact that people started asking TSR for stuff that Gygax, Arneson, et al. thought they should make up themselves. But with D&D becoming the Big Name and the default gateway to the hobby, it meant that the default approach to playing different types of fantasy was more likely to be 'shoehorn it into D&D somehow' rather than 'find or write a new game that does this better.' I think this, along with other factors, wound up shifting the game as it iterated through editions--there were things that were found to not fit the design goals to some extent, but the design goals themselves shifted as the audience grew and changed.

  So what if D&D had not been the Big Game that everyone started with? Would it perhaps have preserved a more distinctive, old-school feel instead of having to be 'all things to all people'?

  Of course, this is all hypothetical until someone builds a hobby-centric time machine. :)

Quote from: TristramEvans;846073Hell, why does anyone play with suit cards anymore at all anymore now that Magic: the god-damn Gathering exists? Derpa Derpa Doo Evolution!"

Speaking of assmonkeys, in one of Ron Edwards' early essays he said something on the order of "if gamist gamers are interested in the game aspect why don't they just play baseball or soccer?"

I don't remember it exactly, and I really, TRULY cannot be arsed to spend more than the 30 seconds on Google I already have, but it definitely carried the idea that "gamists" should play something other than RPGs.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846111A thought: Was D&D a victim of its own success?

  I'm not just referring to the oft-cited fact that people started asking TSR for stuff that Gygax, Arneson, et al. thought they should make up themselves. But with D&D becoming the Big Name and the default gateway to the hobby, it meant that the default approach to playing different types of fantasy was more likely to be 'shoehorn it into D&D somehow' rather than 'find or write a new game that does this better.' I think this, along with other factors, wound up shifting the game as it iterated through editions--there were things that were found to not fit the design goals to some extent, but the design goals themselves shifted as the audience grew and changed.

  So what if D&D had not been the Big Game that everyone started with? Would it perhaps have preserved a more distinctive, old-school feel instead of having to be 'all things to all people'?

  Of course, this is all hypothetical until someone builds a hobby-centric time machine. :)

Partially that, and partially once people said "I don't want the experience that the current version of D&D gives" TSR, and later WOTC, of COURSE was going to change the game to give different experiences.

Just like once my model railroad company makes a model of every steam engine in the history of the world, I'm going to start making diesels.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846097"What I like is RIGHT!  And what you like is WRONG!"

If D&D has undergone an evolution, then 3rd edition was was a shark turning into a lump of festering shit.

Give it up, dude. Different games are different, not better.  I think 3E sucks so hard the skin comes off my dick; it is a prime example of everything wrong with game design, from "a rule for every fucking ridiculous thing no matter how trivial" to Skip Williams' stated goal to "protect players from the whims of arbitrary game masters."

Where did I say that???

Every edition of D&D was where a bunch of people we called designers took what was before and added or changed something to better fit what they and other gamers wanted to play, or so it was claimed.  Gamers that don't have the previous background, nor actually played with the late Gary Gygax.

The original game was based off fantasy war games, yes?  Then it changed because war gamers had their own version that a lot of the newer 'generation' didn't understand.  So it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time.

Then came AD&D, then 3e and so on and so forth, all of these are steps into changing, adapting to how people played because of experience or simply wanting something different.

5e might seem a step back but it's got a lot of things from all version and is doing things D&D never did.  Like the Proficiency Bonus applying to everything, the Saving Throws based on the stats, rather than it's own chart.

Different.

Does it make it 'better'?  Fuck if I know.  And frankly, I don't think so.  I've played in a few sessions of Rules Cyclopedia, Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, AD&D (both editions, but mainly 2e, simply because it was the one I started with) and I had fun with all of them.

But whatever, people will read what they want to read, and ignore the rest.  Welcome to the Internet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846097If D&D has undergone an evolution, then 3rd edition was was a shark turning into a lump of festering shit.

Give it up, dude. Different games are different, not better.  I think 3E sucks so hard the skin comes off my dick; it is a prime example of everything wrong with game design, from "a rule for every fucking ridiculous thing no matter how trivial" to Skip Williams' stated goal to "protect players from the whims of arbitrary game masters."

  3rd Edition is arguably the reductio ad absurdam of certain elements of the AD&D project, both as undertaken and as perceived by fans--the 'rules for everything' reputation (explicitly cited by Peter Adkison in his thoughts on the design in Thirty Years of Adventure), the 'elite version' of D&D or roleplaying in general, and 'one game to rule them all, one game to find them, one game to bring them all and to the designer's will bind them'. :)

   4th Edition, IMO, is a mutant offshoot that borrows from numerous parts of D&D's history and that unfortunately zigged where the market zagged.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846097"What I like is RIGHT!  And what you like is WRONG!"

And your favorite game suxxors! Unless your favorite game is also my favorite game, but in that case you are playing it wrong!

Gotta love the internet.

Quote from: The Ent;846106Hey! I'd finally managed to forget that dude, and then you come 'rounds reminding me of the guy like this! Thanx a lot, dude! :rolleyes:

(:D)

Topher was a poster here? That must have been interesting...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846097Different games are different, not better.  I think 3E sucks so hard the skin comes off my dick; it is a prime example of everything wrong with game design...

You keep both those thoughts in your head at the same time, do you?

Quote from: Xúc xắc;846166You keep both those thoughts in your head at the same time, do you?

I didn't think it was necessary to label my opinion of 3E as my opinion given the context.

Shall I use larger type and smaller words next time?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;8461153rd Edition is arguably the reductio ad absurdam of certain elements of the AD&D project, both as undertaken and as perceived by fans--the 'rules for everything' reputation (explicitly cited by Peter Adkison in his thoughts on the design in Thirty Years of Adventure), the 'elite version' of D&D or roleplaying in general, and 'one game to rule them all, one game to find them, one game to bring them all and to the designer's will bind them'. :)

Yea, can't argue with that. But the alternative was to just take your lumps when the DM was being a dick or find a new DM. And that was as good as never since you were lucky to find a dozen people to even hear of D&D let alone play any of it in the mid-90's AND find someone who knew what the fuck they were doing as a DM. Most likely leaving a group or DM meant you just didn't play D&D.

With the TOTAL codification of the rules it turned into "You can only do this because of X from pg. blah-blah" and at least everyone was on the same damn page. You quickly learned the fast version of "Everything provokes OoAs unless you have a feat. Don't grapple anything bigger than you unless you have specifics for it. And fear high level magic." It was a shit ton of rules but at least you could point to something when the shit-bag behind the screen was being a douche lagoon.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;8460764th Edition, IMO, is a mutant offshoot that borrows from numerous parts of D&D's history and that unfortunately zigged where the market zagged.

Yea, also can't argue with this. I blame marketing and presentation the most.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846170I didn't think it was necessary to label my opinion of 3E as my opinion given the context.

It's obviously your opinion. It's just really hypocritical to shoot down "Edition X sucks more than Edition Y" by saying "None of them suck because there's no right or wrong; edition Z sucks the most!"

Quote from: Xúc xắc;846174It's obviously your opinion. It's just really hypocritical to shoot down "Edition X sucks more than Edition Y" by saying "None of them suck because there's no right or wrong; edition Z sucks the most!"

There's that distinction between personal opinion and objective fact that seems so hard for some people to grasp.

Quote from: Batman;846171It was a shit ton of rules but at least you could point to something when the shit-bag behind the screen was being a douche lagoon.

Not gaming is better than bad gaming.  If  you don't trust the referee get the fuck out of there.

Not gaming is better than bad gaming.  Always.

Quote from: Batman;846171Yea, also can't argue with this. I blame marketing and presentation the most.

As much as I sounded like I had said that, that wasn't me.  Please attribute it to Armchair Gamer, it's his statement.  Whether or not I agree with it, notwithstanding.

Quote from: Nexus;846148Topher was a poster here? That must have been interesting...

No doubt. I think not though. :-/

(scratches his head)

I don't quite understand the intense hostility to Christopher using "evolution" as a metaphor for how D&D -- and, really, the whole industry -- developed.  

People weren't uniformly inventing (or "designing," if you're insisting on pedantry) completely new games with completely new mechanics and paradigms, all in a pristine vacuum.  They saw OD&D, and/or its successors, and thought "Hm.  I'd like to make a game just like that, only for superheroes," or "Hm.  You know, that rule sucks.  It'd work better if we tried this approach instead," or "Hm.  This pseudo-JRRT stuff is lame, and I'd rather use my very well developed and non-European setting instead," or "Hm, I'm reading the prozines/APAs and people are saying this and asking for that."

Heck, same with D&D itself.  The D&D supplements came out because a lot of folks thought that the original three books just didn't cut it.  AD&D came out because management felt the previous version was deficient.  3rd edition came out because management felt the previous version was dated.  4th edition came out because management figured a lot of people were pissed off at 3rd edition.  And so on.

There's nothing wrong with "evolution" as a word to describe this process, and of course it doesn't freaking imply that no human being had a hand in the process or that every single change was beneficial to the game or the hobby.  :confused:

Meh, I shrug at the definition fight. Sometimes it matters, but I also assume my audience has a broader grasp of definitional inflection. Like how so many people think they are clever being pedantic over the use of "literally" as an autoantonym/contronym, I find it a waste of time to correct such blinkered reading. As a hint, he's probably using definition #6, to give an idea of how large a space we have to work with the word "evolution." (Yes that was deliberately vague, an invitation to pique one's curiosity.)

Quote from: Nexus;846148Topher was a poster here? That must have been interesting...

Not here.

Quote from: Xúc xắc;846174It's obviously your opinion. It's just really hypocritical to shoot down "Edition X sucks more than Edition Y" by saying "None of them suck because there's no right or wrong; edition Z sucks the most!"

No, just as bit rhetorically sloppy.

Quote from: Ravenswing, Blue Man Groupie;846225(scratches his head)

I don't quite understand the intense hostility to Christopher using "evolution" as a metaphor for how D&D -- and, really, the whole industry -- developed.  

Because people keep using "evolution" to mean "newer games are better".

1. That isn't what evolution means. In fact, the argument is actually an example of religious thinking distorting science, and it's become one of the most perniciously persistent sources of misinformation about natural processes. It's basically Flat-Earthism, except not a joke.

2. And in the RPG context, it's always used as a stealth appeal to (false) authority: "Old school games objectively suck. But I don't have the balls to say that. So I made an analogy to Science! showing the idiots how stupid old stuff really is!"

Quote from: Pat;8462451. That isn't what evolution means. In fact, the argument is actually an example of religious thinking distorting science, and it's become one of the most perniciously persistent sources of misinformation about natural processes. It's basically Flat-Earthism, except not a joke.

Evolution specifically deals with biologically inheritable traits, if you're trying to get all science-y. It's completely inapplicable to games in that context, but if you're going to appropriate the term for rpgs, it COULD mean "better". This isn't some sort of religious problem, it's a problem with people using terms outside their realm of applicability. Specifically, for rpgs, I would ditch "evolution" and go with "metamorphosis" in the Hegelian sense, as THAT is what people are actually talking about. Or you could just say "evolve" and not be a pedantic fuck.

Quote from: Brad;846247Evolution specifically deals with biologically inheritable traits, if you're trying to get all science-y. It's completely inapplicable to games in that context, but if you're going to appropriate the term for rpgs, it COULD mean "better". This isn't some sort of religious problem, it's a problem with people using terms outside their realm of applicability. Specifically, for rpgs, I would ditch "evolution" and go with "metamorphosis" in the Hegelian sense, as THAT is what people are actually talking about. Or you could just say "evolve" and not be a pedantic fuck.

I already stated that it's an inaccurate analogy, in my previous post. And it's not pedantic; this mistaken view of how evolution works is actually a huge problem in the biological sciences, and contributed to a century of people wasting time on crap concepts like racial senescence, or overlooking animal behaviors (like tool use) that disprove human exceptionalism. And it's still a widespread misapprehension today. And it's clearly derived from a Creationist response to On the Origin of Species.

And I'm not familiar with Hegelian metamorphosis. All I really remember about Hegel is thesis + antithesis = synthesis.

Quote from: Tetsubo;845876This: 'But, I preferred AD&D to 3E as it was more atmospheric', I don't get. How can a set of rules have 'atmosphere'? Some of the setting material from the AD&D era is great. I still have some of it. But I wouldn't ever use the rules again.

Maybe they're referring to Gygax's faux-Vancian prose -which I enjoyed, by the way.

Or they could mean the artwork. Trampier's art looked like old woodcuts and cross-hatching and evoked something arcane, creepy and sinister. Elmore evoked Superfriends.

Not that it really matters. The charts and tables remain the same regardless of Gygax and his writing style, and if anyone felt that strongly about the art, they could do what I did with minimal effort.  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=559377&postcount=43)

Quote from: soltakss;845842How can people apologise for liking Alf? It is comedy gold.

So was Vanilla Ice.

No matter what your game- somebody hates it; 1e players seem unresonably surprised by this fact, especially aftter the oft quoted '30 years' they have been struggling to persevere.
Someday, we'll all be dead.

Quote from: Elfdart;846257Elmore evoked Superfriends.

The fuck he did.

My 2 cents:

Its not that all games from that era (early 80s to mid 90s) are objectively bad, it's that a large number of those games share certain traits that I personally find bothersome, in special an elevation in complexity/clunkyness without without apparent justification, coupled with a shift in gaming mindset from sandbox/player-driven to railroadish / "GM prepares the story that the players get to follow without deviation." And both AD&D 1st and 2nd editions drink on those fountains in a higher or lesser degree.

And about the evolution argument, I kind of agree with it, but only on the "people taking what works and discarding what doesn't" part. I don't think an 80s game is objectively worse than a 2000s game or something. Its pretty similar to the videogames industry, really: apart from the interface/usability aspect (which could be compared to the layout and organization aspects of rpg books) there is nothing nowadays that's objectively better, from a pure "having fun" criteria, than games released 20 years ago. (damn, Dwarf Fortress is one of the big hits of the decade and it runs on ASCII :D )

Quote from: Ulairi;845308Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

Because it's a shitty game. 2nd Edition is significantly better than 1st Edition, but it's still a clunky mess of broken mechanics that virtually no one ever plays without substantially house ruling the hell out of it.

Collectively, AD&D is the worst RPG published under the D&D trademark.

(And, yes, I am including 4th Edition in that assessment.)

Ad&d should have used Jenga.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;846336Because it's a shitty game. 2nd Edition is significantly better than 1st Edition, but it's still a clunky mess of broken mechanics that virtually no one ever plays without substantially house ruling the hell out of it.

Collectively, AD&D is the worst RPG published under the D&D trademark.

(And, yes, I am including 4th Edition in that assessment.)

D&D had the widest reach in popular culture under Ad&d. I play Ad&d without a lot of house rules. We pretty much run it raw.

you know it is interesting to talk about as i did get to play ad&d a few times in my life it was fun but not the kind of game id play every day
personalty i prefer 3.x/pf though i need to look at 5e i might really like that ed my self

but one thing i will say is most of the people who iv met who grew up on o/1/2e
they tend to lean the same way they might like to play a game here and there of what ever ed they grew up on but they want another edition for there day to day gaming  this includes a few ppl if met who grew up on 2e but prefer
a heavy modded 0d&d for there day to day

Quote from: Ulairi;846358D&D had the widest reach in popular culture under Ad&d. I play Ad&d without a lot of house rules. We pretty much run it raw.

Despite my hatred for it I easily admit that the AD&D Fighter is WAAY better than the poor 3e one.

Quote from: Ulairi;846358D&D had the widest reach in popular culture under Ad&d. I play Ad&d without a lot of house rules. We pretty much run it raw.

Good idea.

Ad&d tends to work better the less extra stuff you use, IMHO. Like the core rules are pretty awesome, the extra rules less so.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;846336Because it's a shitty game. 2nd Edition is significantly better than 1st Edition, but it's still a clunky mess of broken mechanics that virtually no one ever plays without substantially house ruling the hell out of it.

Collectively, AD&D is the worst RPG published under the D&D trademark.

(And, yes, I am including 4th Edition in that assessment.)

Stupid people dislike AD&D because it's too full of big words for them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846483Stupid people dislike AD&D because it's too full of big words for them.

I'm too young to know ... has AD&D 1E always had that whiff of elitism about it? :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846491I'm too young to know ... has AD&D 1E always had that whiff of elitism about it? :)

It certainly did when I was in middle school. We sneered at B/X because it was suppsedly for babies. The release of each new edition triggers this shit.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846491I'm too young to know ... has AD&D 1E always had that whiff of elitism about it? :)

Nah, I'm just fighting asshole with asshole.

Actually, I'm going to go on the record here and say that the Biological Evolution label does apply and is accurate.  Here's why.

A lot of people take issue with the Evolution term because it's tossed out there usually meaning "my game is better" or "oohh shiny" or "go back inside old man, I'm not on your freaking lawn".

Other people take exception because they think the biological meaning of Evolution is an improvement.  But it's not.  As was said, it's an adaptation, a specialization if you will.  Evolution makes mistakes.  Some species hyper-specialize to such a narrow environment that their extinction is ensured when that environment experiences the slightest change.

The best example of this is Forge design.  Hyper-specialized games that are created to facilitate one specific type of gaming experience to the detriment of all others.  If you like that type of game...great, if you don't, the game is mostly useless.

That's why games that support multiple playstyles always have been and always will be more successful than any type of specialized game that focuses on a specific playstyle and by definition a smaller market.

Do you think it's a coincidence that all the new narrative games coming out are chasing and buying known IPs for those games like a vengeance?  Because without that IP, the appeal is next to nothing.

WotC and Paizo's sales vs. anyone else attest to the biological evolution argument, adapt to a broader environment, you achieve greater success.  Adapt to a narrower environment, and you can live only within that narrow environment.

They are wrong not in using evolution in it's biological meaning, they are wrong in assuming that means it's more successful or an improvement.  As I said earlier...

Evolution makes mistakes.  It goes down dead ends.

@CRKrueger,

Dont know if I agree with your theory, as D&D 3e is a pretty focused design and yet one of the most popular and influential editions of an RPG ever. Further, D&D 4e was pretty popular overall (even if much less popular than 3e) and its an even more laser-focused design.

So, I think "adapting to a broader environment" is a factor of the equation, but far from being the sole one.

Quote from: Itachi;846514@CRKrueger,

Dont know if I agree with your theory, as D&D 3e is a pretty focused design and yet one of the most popular and influential editions of an RPG ever. Further, D&D 4e was pretty popular overall (even if much less popular than 3e) and its an even more laser-focused design.

So, I think "adapting to a broader environment" is a factor of the equation, but far from being the sole one.

It may have more crunch and exception-based rules design, but it still allows a playstyle that cares about roleplaying, a playstyle that cares about story (even though it doesn't mechanically assist) or a playstyle that could give two shits about either of those.  In other words, Paizo gives you the rules to run the game, it doesn't ask you why you want to run the game, or design for only one motivation.

But other things do add in...
As I mentioned earlier, IP popularity for one, which is why some companies with narrative systems are chasing IPs like crazy, because it's hard to get a new system off the ground with a brand new set of very focused mechanics targeting a niche of a niche.

Supplemental content as well as presentation are others.  Reading RPGs has become a hobby among those who do not play, and many supplements can be useful or entertaining completely divorced from the system that spawned them and so have...a broader appeal, despite the narrowly focused system.

But specialize to serve one audience well and you will have less of an audience, but a more loyal one.  It's markets you're adapting to, not environments, but the end is the same...specialize too far, you risk hitting an evolutionary dead end.

Quote from: Itachi;846514@CRKrueger,

Dont know if I agree with your theory, as D&D 3e is a pretty focused design and yet one of the most popular and influential editions of an RPG ever. Further, D&D 4e was pretty popular overall (even if much less popular than 3e) and its an even more laser-focused design.

So, I think "adapting to a broader environment" is a factor of the equation, but far from being the sole one.

Was 4E really that popular? I know that it shook the hobby and they ran away pretty far from it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;846521As I mentioned earlier, IP popularity for one, which is why some companies with narrative systems are chasing IPs like crazy, because it's hard to get a new system off the ground with a brand new set of very focused mechanics targeting a niche of a niche.

That's a good point - one I hadn't considered! Explains stuff like the FATE version of The Dresdenverse I guess.

Quote from: Aos;846492It certainly did when I was in middle school. We sneered at B/X because it was suppsedly for babies. The release of each new edition triggers this shit.

When I was in middle school (early 1990s), some kids who played AD&D 2e looked down on us for playing RC. [strike]Middle-schoolers[/strike] People of all ages will be idiots, with or without Gygaxian prose.

Quote from: The Ent;846536That's a good point - one I hadn't considered! Explains stuff like the FATE version of The Dresdenverse I guess.

I think that had more to do with personal connections than anything.

Quote from: The Ent;846536That's a good point - one I hadn't considered! Explains stuff like the FATE version of The Dresdenverse I guess.

City creation rules in that system are also fucking amazing.  Love those books, and the rules perfectly capture it.

Rest of the stuff is varying degrees of useful, think it was intended to be houseruled a bunch.

Quote from: The Ent;846536That's a good point - one I hadn't considered! Explains stuff like the FATE version of The Dresdenverse I guess.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;846540I think that had more to do with personal connections than anything.

Fate really has made it without scoring major IPs.
Pelgrane Press doesn't rely on IP (except for Cthulhu), but on the reputation and philosophy of their designers.

MWP with Cortex versions of Firefly, Leverage, Marvel, Smallville and Modiphius with 2d20 versions of Infinity, Dust, Mutant Chronicles, Cthulhu, Mindjammer, Conan and now Barsoom are the prime examples right now of IP bagging to push a new system normally no one would give the time of day to.

@CRKrueger,

I dont disagree with you that getting popular IPs certanly helps those kind of ultra-focused rules as seen on Marvel, Leverage, etc. But its important to also note that the same practice was adopted by various d20 publishers during the d20 boom and the results were... questionable, with a lot of cases struggling to receive the kind of recognition most of the recent crop did. So, my point is: perhaps these ultra-focused designs simply found a natural habitat in addressing the kind of fiction and themes shown on these TV series/Movies/Pulp stories/etc. I certainly didnt try or read all of them, but of those Ive had the opportunity to, I can say without a doubt that they are much more faithful in depicting the kind of action and drama found on those stories then their d20 counterparts.

So, I think I ended up agreeing with your theory ( :D ), even if coming at it from a slightly different angle.

Quote from: Pat;846245Because people keep using "evolution" to mean "newer games are better".

1. That isn't what evolution means. In fact, the argument is actually an example of religious thinking distorting science, and it's become one of the most perniciously persistent sources of misinformation about natural processes. It's basically Flat-Earthism, except not a joke.

2. And in the RPG context, it's always used as a stealth appeal to (false) authority: "Old school games objectively suck. But I don't have the balls to say that. So I made an analogy to Science! showing the idiots how stupid old stuff really is!"

I quite agree that people bring their agendas to the table when the term "evolution" is mentioned, and that it's a loaded and charged issue.  But that's about us and what's going on in our own heads, not about the term itself.

Quote from: Pat;846245Because people keep using "evolution" to mean "newer games are better".

1. That isn't what evolution means. In fact, the argument is actually an example of religious thinking distorting science, and it's become one of the most perniciously persistent sources of misinformation about natural processes. It's basically Flat-Earthism, except not a joke.

2. And in the RPG context, it's always used as a stealth appeal to (false) authority: "Old school games objectively suck. But I don't have the balls to say that. So I made an analogy to Science! showing the idiots how stupid old stuff really is!"

That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.  Newer versions of D&D adapted stuff from the older versions.  That doesn't even make subjectively better, it just means we've changed, and are now seeing things in different ways.  Which is neither good nor bad.

Life is change.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845327... because like in so many aspects of our culture, people are conditioned to want only the New and Improved version of anything.

This might be an age dependent thing.

For example, some people might not like the remakes/reboots of movies and tv shows they grew up watching from when they were younger.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846586That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.  Newer versions of D&D adapted stuff from the older versions.  That doesn't even make subjectively better, it just means we've changed, and are now seeing things in different ways.  Which is neither good nor bad.

Life is change.

You have started using "adaptation" in more recent posts. For instance, "o it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846114&postcount=94) or "adapting to how people played because of experience or simply wanting something different" are reasonable uses of the evolution analogy.

But you didn't start there.[1] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=846586#post846586)[2] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71) Good to see it cleared up, though.

Quote from: Pat;846665You have started using "adaptation" in more recent posts. For instance, "o it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846114&postcount=94) or "adapting to how people played because of experience or simply wanting something different" are reasonable uses of the evolution analogy.

But you didn't start there.[1] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=846586#post846586)[2] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71) Good to see it cleared up, though.

The issue is that people want ascribe a differing meaning to it, to apparently, justify their outrage.  Evolution is change, some of it's good, some of it's bad.  But if people want to get all kneejerky over it, I don't honestly care.  It's their knickers that's in a twist, I have better things than to pull an XKCD comic strip whenever someone misreads or misunderstands my statement.

But for the sake of clarity, and it's the polite thing to do, I changed my language so that people understand what I'm trying to say.

Quote from: ggroy;846589This might be an age dependent thing.

For example, some people might not like the remakes/reboots of movies and tv shows they grew up watching from when they were younger.

Yeah, this. Allthough, depends. You got bad remakes (Bay Transformers) but also great ones (Gundam: The Origin).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846688The issue is that people want ascribe a differing meaning to it, to apparently, justify their outrage.  Evolution is change, some of it's good, some of it's bad.  But if people want to get all kneejerky over it, I don't honestly care.  It's their knickers that's in a twist, I have better things than to pull an XKCD comic strip whenever someone misreads or misunderstands my statement.

But for the sake of clarity, and it's the polite thing to do, I changed my language so that people understand what I'm trying to say.

How... gracious.

It must be an interesting world, where everyone is outraged all the time. Instead of, you know, just pointing out a common fallacy.

Quote from: Pat;846737How... gracious.

It must be an interesting world, where everyone is outraged all the time. Instead of, you know, just pointing out a common fallacy.

"You called me on my bullshit, so I pretended I used the wrong word and that it's all your faults for not realizing the word I actually meant."

The notion that anything old is anachronistic and crappy is daft. Equally daft is the notion that anything new and innovative must be superficial and trendy.

Quote from: Haffrung;846753The notion that anything old is anachronistic and crappy is daft. Equally daft is the notion that anything new and innovative must be superficial and trendy.

Yeah. I guess the right thing to do in this situation is to take a step back, take a deep breath and get some perspective and stuff.

Quote from: Pat;846737How... gracious.

It must be an interesting world, where everyone is outraged all the time. Instead of, you know, just pointing out a common fallacy.

Tell me about it.  I had no idea that the word 'evolution' would trigger a dog-pile.  Welcome to the internet, eh?  I had no idea that people would so sensitive.

I still stand by my usage of the word.  Gaming has evolved, changed, adapted, if not the systems then the people playing them, simply because life is change.  I'm not who I was one second ago.

I personally know people who are still playing AD&D around here, but their gaming has changed from when they were back in high school.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846586That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.  Newer versions of D&D adapted stuff from the older versions.  That doesn't even make subjectively better, it just means we've changed, and are now seeing things in different ways.  Which is neither good nor bad.

Life is change.

This is the better definition, I think. Change. Pure and simple.

/sigh. We could post dictionary quotes with their multiple definitions for the word "evolution," but that would just lead to a dictionary source fight. Those book are heavy. Someone might chip a nail.

Debating semantics, the second least useful thing possible to do.

I was playing in a 4E game a few years ago, and another player congratulated the DM on a session that was great because of DM judgment calls and openness of scenario "like the old days." Then he backed up to say that of course the old days were the bad days, we needed the hard rules of 4E to save us from the very flexibility he had just praised before some Political Correctness Censor in his brain kicked in.

It seems like a lot of folks -- including WotC's marketing dept. -- felt it necessary to put down the old in order to justify the new. This struck me as especially weird since it was riding on the brand value the old had created! If it really sucked, then wouldn't it make more sense to give the new and different thing a new and different name?

Anyway, when something becomes a Party Line where people happen to be, some number will parrot it without really giving it much coherent thought.

Quote from: Haffrung;846753Equally daft is the notion that anything new and innovative must be superficial and trendy.

 True!  But until some time passes and the smoke clears, it's had to tell.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;846114The original game was based off fantasy war games, yes?  Then it changed because war gamers had their own version that a lot of the newer 'generation' didn't understand.  So it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time.

One could also say it was dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamers. It would be just as accurate as saying the change was an evolution.

In other words both descriptions are shite trotted out to support the idiotic notion that one version is objectively better than another.

Quote from: Ravenswing;846225(scratches his head)

I don't quite understand the intense hostility to Christopher using "evolution" as a metaphor for how D&D -- and, really, the whole industry -- developed.

Because evolution is not being used to describe a biological-like process or a method of describing slow and gradual change from one design to another design. It is being used in the same way that some Victorians and all social Darwinists use the term evolution to describe a process that moves from crude, simple, less valuable entities or objects to elegant, complex, more valuable entities and objects. In other words it is not used descriptively, but is falsely used prescriptively.

Quote from: Pat;846665You have started using "adaptation" in more recent posts. For instance, "o it changed, one could say evolved to adapt to the way gamers were at the time" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846114&postcount=94) or "adapting to how people played because of experience or simply wanting something different" are reasonable uses of the evolution analogy.

But you didn't start there.[1] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=846586#post846586)[2] (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71) Good to see it cleared up, though.

Indeed. It would have saved a lot of electrons had Christopher not jumped down that rabbit hole with both feet nor taken so long to climb back out.

Quote from: Bren;847068One could also say it was dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gamers. It would be just as accurate as saying the change was an evolution.

In other words both descriptions are shite trotted out to support the idiotic notion that one version is objectively better than another.

There you go again, shoving a bias against a word that effectively means change, and yes, growth (which is not always beneficial or 'good') to mean something it currently does not.

And I have to ask, if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change, why do people still use in context of say...  Language.  We often say that English has evolved from it's roots, for example.

Which makes me question, given that Bling-Bling, Honk, Beep and other words that were originally Onomatopoeia (AKA sound words) can we honestly say that those changes were for the better?

Again, I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?

I maintain that D&D and all other games, including Call of Cthulu, Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest have evolved over the years.  Not one of the new editions are objectively better than the other.  Subjectively, though, depends on who enjoys which.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847074There you go again, shoving a bias against a word

I've no bias regarding the word. I'm biased against people using the word to support their own agenda that certain changes in games made games better as opposed to simply different. Evolution has the context of progress, among other contexts, and the meaning that includes progress is frequently used in RPG discussions to "prove" that the newer game has evolved for the better. If you want to avoid that connotation, than I would suggest you just say that some RPGs have changed over time to provide a different game to serve different player desires. Its a neutral description of the process.

QuoteAnd I have to ask, if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change, why do people still use in context of say...  Language.  We often say that English has evolved from it's roots, for example.

Because people seldom argue that English is better now than it was in the time of Shakespeare. Though many people would agree that the standardization of spelling was a good thing and that the vocabulary of English continues to grow as new words are added so in those two sense, English evolving and evolving including the meaning of improvement and greater complexity is not a controversial statement about the English language. It might be more controversial about other languages, Greek for example, where simplification of the language has occurred.

QuoteAgain, I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?

I've stated that clearly. The part of my post you quoted outlines my objection. What part are you finding unclear or confusing?

Seems we're having an argument over connotation here.  I think Bren's right when he says that evolution, for most people, implies a desired change, especially if we think in terms of evolution as advantage. Then, too, I think of someone saying, "My views on _______ have evolved over time," which indicates, to me, that they've become more refined, and therefore -- for lack of a another word --"better."

That said, I also believe Christopher when he says he's using the word as a straight synonym, more or less, for the word "change."

So I think The defendant is absent malice. No harm, no foul.:-D

But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move tiward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

Quote from: cranebump;847087But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move tiward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

I personally think that an additive system was a good change.  It's easier for the human brain, apparently.  Or at least so I heard.

But I'll also concede that not everyone would like it.

Quote from: cranebump;847087That said, I also believe Christopher when he says he's using the word as a straight synonym, more or less, for the word "change."

I don't.

Look at his earlier posts. For instance, here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71

Notice how he mentions things like "mother nature", "mutations", and even makes an analogy to the appendix. Clearly a reference to biological evolution, even if it's an incorrect use of the word. Because he also says things like "some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical", and denigrating the old in favor of the new is one of the most insidious and hard-to-stamp out fallacies about biological evolution.

Or here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846040&postcount=82

Where he not only quotes a definition that includes "development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding" as synonyms (clearly, another use of evolution in the false sense of an an upward arrow), but he makes another reference to the biological definition, while attacking someone else for being unscientific: "Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is? Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?"

Then look at more recent posts, like this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846586&postcount=138

Notice how he completely denies what he said in his other post. ("That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.") He's now defining evolution as change, which is correct (enough). That would have been a good place for him to stop.

But he doesn't. Here's a more recent example:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=847074&postcount=154

Where he pretends he never used evolution in the biological sense at all ("if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change..."), and actually starts blaming other people ("I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?").

Of course, even in that post, he slips and uses the term in a biologically determinist fashion ("that effectively means change, and yes, growth"). (No, it doesn't.)

It's basically this argument:

"The sky is orange."
"No it's not, it's blue."
"I said the sky is blue, I don't see what your problem is."
"No, you didn't. You said it was orange."
"I don't know why everyone is picking on me. I clearly said the sky is blue."
"Sigh."
"Now, as I was saying, the sky is orange...."

He's changed his argument so many times the whole thread is spinning.

Quote from: cranebump;847087But seriously, I think if I had to label any one aspect of DnD as a positive change, it's the move toward a unified task resolution mechanic--I was never a fan of "Roll high here, low there," etc.  I also think the move toward a simpler, less idiosyncratic version of the rules promotes greater accessibility, and I would call that an improvement, as well. The one thing I would never do, however, is drop the word "objectively" in anywhere, because thats how the really BIG arguments start.

Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

How do you test that, and what metrics do you use? What games have been compared, and what are the quantitative results?

Yes, some forms of math (like addition) are known to be easier than others (like subtraction). But I've never seen a solid, comparative analysis that directly applies to the RPG world.

For instance, a lot of people cite the d20 system for being superior to OD&D because it uses addition to determine whether an attacker hits, while OD&D uses subtraction.

Which is argument based on false premises. OD&D does not use subtraction. It uses a table lookup, and so does AD&D 1st edition. Which is easier, cross-indexing a table or adding two-digit numbers? And what studies support that assertion?

Until that's nailed down, it's not objective. It's just an opinion. And a poorly supported one.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Presentation - Subjective
Easiness use and learn - Subjective
Speed of play - Subjective
Accomplishment of stated goals - Subjective

What I might love, you might hate.
What I might find easy to play, you might find really difficult.
I might know all the tables off by heart and be able to work out TCAH0 in my head, you might struggle with and have to look up tables all the while.
Unless the stated goals are "Allowing you to play a roleplaying game", I can't see what use they are. Also, I might think that the game achieves its goals and you might not.

Empirically, if you polled a thousand people and took the results, then that might give a view, but any one individual's opinions will be entirely subjective.

Quote from: soltakss;847201Presentation - Subjective
Easiness use and learn - Subjective
Speed of play - Subjective
Accomplishment of stated goals - Subjective

What I might love, you might hate.
What I might find easy to play, you might find really difficult.
I might know all the tables off by heart and be able to work out TCAH0 in my head, you might struggle with and have to look up tables all the while.
Unless the stated goals are "Allowing you to play a roleplaying game", I can't see what use they are. Also, I might think that the game achieves its goals and you might not.

Empirically, if you polled a thousand people and took the results, then that might give a view, but any one individual's opinions will be entirely subjective.

Hush, you and your "knowing what words actually mean,"

Quote from: Pat;847196How do you test that, and what metrics do you use? What games have been compared, and what are the quantitative results?

That was going to be the gist of my response, but you beat me to it, and covered the issue better than I ever could. Thanks! :-)

Quote from: Pat;847185I don't.

Look at his earlier posts. For instance, here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=845939&postcount=71

Notice how he mentions things like "mother nature", "mutations", and even makes an analogy to the appendix. Clearly a reference to biological evolution, even if it's an incorrect use of the word. Because he also says things like "some of the old ideas are clunky and frankly nonsensical", and denigrating the old in favor of the new is one of the most insidious and hard-to-stamp out fallacies about biological evolution.

Or here:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846040&postcount=82

Where he not only quotes a definition that includes "development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding" as synonyms (clearly, another use of evolution in the false sense of an an upward arrow), but he makes another reference to the biological definition, while attacking someone else for being unscientific: "Have you ever taken a look at biology and what evolution is? Or am I talking to a 'creationist'?"

Then look at more recent posts, like this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=846586&postcount=138

Notice how he completely denies what he said in his other post. ("That is not how I was using the term, I was using Evolution to mean Adaptation.") He's now defining evolution as change, which is correct (enough). That would have been a good place for him to stop.

But he doesn't. Here's a more recent example:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=847074&postcount=154

Where he pretends he never used evolution in the biological sense at all ("if you keep wanting to use evolution to mean a biological change..."), and actually starts blaming other people ("I'm left wondering what sort of agenda you have against a single word?").

Of course, even in that post, he slips and uses the term in a biologically determinist fashion ("that effectively means change, and yes, growth"). (No, it doesn't.)

It's basically this argument:

"The sky is orange."
"No it's not, it's blue."
"I said the sky is blue, I don't see what your problem is."
"No, you didn't. You said it was orange."
"I don't know why everyone is picking on me. I clearly said the sky is blue."
"Sigh."
"Now, as I was saying, the sky is orange...."

He's changed his argument so many times the whole thread is spinning.

Hmmmm, I see...Senator Brady, your response?:)

Quote from: cranebump;847238Hmmmm, I see...Senator Brady, your response?:)

That there's this agenda against a single word, and that people are ascribing meaning to it where there is none.  

I also find it amusing that someone pretty much right out said that a AD&D2e sucks, and no one took them to task for it.  I guess Gronan doesn't actually care about any other edition until he perceives an attack on his own.

At the end of the day, I still believe that every Edition after the little brown books are an evolution, and adaptation, to better fit the way that gamers changed over the years.  If people prefer one edition over an other, that's their prerogative.  It has no bearing my beliefs, nor should my opinion have any bearing on theirs.  And if they want to get upset, that's their problem, not mine.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847243That there's this agenda against a single word, and that people are ascribing meaning to it where there is none.  

Boo! Hoo! Everybody is being mean to me just because I don't know what words mean. It's a conspiracy I tell ya. They all have an agenda. Of some kind. That I also don't understand. Waaaaa!

QuoteI also find it amusing that someone pretty much right out said that a AD&D2e sucks, and no one took them to task for it.

Because it was obvious he was only stating his personal and subjective opinion that he doesn't like AD&D. He was not claiming that objectively AD&D, as a game created later in time than OD&D, must have a higher entropic level and therefore is only a decayed version of the original, pristine design of OD&D...because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. :rolleyes:

QuoteAt the end of the day, I still believe that every Edition after the little brown books are an evolution...

There you go again. And you still don't know what the words you keep using actually mean.

Quote from: Bren;847385Boo! Hoo! Everybody is being mean to me just because I don't know what words mean. It's a conspiracy I tell ya. They all have an agenda. Of some kind. That I also don't understand. Waaaaa!

Amusingly you're ascribing the very same tone people reacted to my statement of 'evolution' to me.  Could it be that you're projecting you're dismay at your own misuse of the word?

Frankly, I don't know, and couldn't care less.  I made my statement, I stand by it, and if people want to get upset about it, nothing I can do about people looking for something to get offended about.  At least that's the impression I'm being given.

Quote from: Bren;847385Because it was obvious he was only stating his personal and subjective opinion that he doesn't like AD&D. He was not claiming that objectively AD&D, as a game created later in time than OD&D, must have a higher entropic level and therefore is only a decayed version of the original, pristine design of OD&D...because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. :rolleyes:

Actually he did.  He never added 'in his opinion', he flat out state that 2e sucks.  Boom, done.

In fact, let me repost it for you:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;846336Because it's a shitty game. 2nd Edition is significantly better than 1st Edition, but it's still a clunky mess of broken mechanics that virtually no one ever plays without substantially house ruling the hell out of it.

Collectively, AD&D is the worst RPG published under the D&D trademark.

(And, yes, I am including 4th Edition in that assessment.)

Where does he say 'in his opinion'?  I see him bashing AD&D outright, and yet, no one bats an eye.  Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Quote from: Bren;847385There you go again. And you still don't know what the words you keep using actually mean.

Really?  I have the dictionary.com page for it, and it tells me otherwise.  Could it be because you don't want it to mean what it really does, that you want to continue this charade?

Personally, I'm done.  I've had my go at the topic, and apparently, found the one word that sets a bunch of people off on this forum, to the point of deliberately misreading it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847392Amusingly you're ascribing the very same tone people reacted to my statement of 'evolution' to me.  Could it be that you're projecting you're dismay at your own misuse of the word?

No it couldn't. But by all means keep beating that silly-ass drum.

QuoteFrankly, I don't know, and couldn't care less.  I made my statement, I stand by it, and if people want to get upset about it, nothing I can do about people looking for something to get offended about.  At least that's the impression I'm being given.

Upset or offended? No. Think you are being a disingenuous maroon? Yes.

QuoteActually he did.  He never added 'in his opinion', he flat out state that 2e sucks.  Boom, done.

My mistake. I thought you were referring to Gronan disliking AD&D not Jason Alexander. Jason confuses his subjective opinion with objective fact on a daily basis.

QuoteWhere does he say 'in his opinion'?  I see him bashing AD&D outright, and yet, no one bats an eye.  Interesting, wouldn't you say?

It might be interesting if it were true. But it's not. In fact several people disagreed with Jason.

Here One Horse Town is pointing out the silliness of Jason's opinion by sarcastically referring to Jason's love of the super innovative Jenga tower used in Dread, a game Jason and all the hip kidz play.

Quote from: One Horse Town;846341Ad&d should have used Jenga.

Ulari disagreed with Jason's assessment of AD&D's design by citing it's popularity and usability as a counter to Jason's subjective opinion.

Quote from: Ulairi;846358D&D had the widest reach in popular culture under Ad&d. I play Ad&d without a lot of house rules. We pretty much run it raw.

And Gronan himself took Jason to task for his idiotic comment right here.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846483

Quote from: Justin Alexander;846336Because it's a shitty game. 2nd Edition is significantly better than 1st Edition, but it's still a clunky mess of broken mechanics that virtually no one ever plays without substantially house ruling the hell out of it.

Collectively, AD&D is the worst RPG published under the D&D trademark.

(And, yes, I am including 4th Edition in that assessment.)

Stupid people dislike AD&D because it's too full of big words for them.

People aren't picking on you because we are upset or offended. You said something dumb. Then you waffled. Then you returned to the same dumb statement.

QuotePersonally, I'm done.  

We can only hope. But I kind of doubt it.

I may not always agree with you, Christopher Brady, but since your very first post contesting your viewpoint that other definitions of 'evolution' being congruent with D&D's existence over time and versions, you have been correct. You explicitly made a distinction from your beginning that you are not talking about it in a biological or ordinal context. So I don't understand why we have so many more pages on this; it's like watching the fight against phantoms.

But whatever makes people happy, no? :cool:

Quote from: Bren;847398People aren't picking on you because we are upset or offended. You said something dumb. Then you waffled. Then you returned to the same dumb statement.

Nonsense.

Which game is better is purely a matter of opinion.

Anything I say other than that is poking the monkeys with sticks.

... I have the stick, not the monkeys.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847465Nonsense.

Try to be more specific about what you are calling as "nonsense"? Because I have a really big stick of my own and you look like a primate to me.

To clarify, I was arguing that which game is better is a matter of taste which is irrelevant to the date of publication. There is a reason milk needs a sell by date and RPGs do not.

...okay, there are enough layers of quotation and response that I'm no longer sure who is responding to what any more.  I think I misunderstood your comment.

Kind of like if-statements nested eight or ten deep.  At some point you lose track of what the hell's going on.

Quote from: Bren;847077I've no bias regarding the word. I'm biased against people using the word to support their own agenda that certain changes in games made games better as opposed to simply different.

I dig that, but is it really what Christopher Brady is doing? Maybe you're reading too much between the lines. More specifically, is CB really unclear on the concept that "better" is an opinion? Or is that perhaps taken as understood?

From the mere fact that some other people claim "better" is an objective standard, it does not follow that CB does so in this case. Are you paying enough attention to what CB actually says?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847479...okay, there are enough layers of quotation and response that I'm no longer sure who is responding to what any more.  I think I misunderstood your comment.

Kind of like if-statements nested eight or ten deep.  At some point you lose track of what the hell's going on.

It happens. Besides it gave me a good excuse to wave a big stick around.

Now the new fangled programs match parens for you. In the old days we had to do our own matching and sort and carry our punch cards to the compiler ourselves.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Wrong.

Now, I'd agree that such things as editing, quality of print, production values, etc, ARE objective, and have gotten better.

But the others are pure subjective.  I, for instance, HATE "unified mechanics."  Unless you're using percentiles for everything, which gets clumsy when I want a 50-50 chance... I'd rather use a d6.  Do people think that Dave and Gary, and those of us who were playtesters, were so FUCKING STUPID we never thought of using one die roll system for everything?

And one person's "idiosyncratic" is another person's "interesting."

I don't mind people liking later games, but I hate like hell the imputation that we were a bunch of godsdamn drooling imbeciles who couldn't think.

Quote from: Bren;847483It happens. Besides it gave me a good excuse to wave a big stick around.

Now the new fangled programs match parens for you. In the old days we had to do our own matching and sort and carry our punch cards to the compiler ourselves.

...yes, I've dropped a deck of punch cards when I didn't bother punching the sequence numbers.

I personally prefer a series of if statements where the "else" condition is "go to end of function."  It's more wordy, but each if statement tests for exactly one desired condition, and it makes it a HELL of a lot clearer what's going on.

Of course, when I was told that I "write C like a COBOL programmer" I took it as a compliment.  I don't think it was intended as one, but too bad.:p

You old dudes are like totally, like, talking about really old stuff :p

Quote from: Phillip;847481I dig that, but is it really what Christopher Brady is doing? Maybe you're reading too much between the lines. More specifically, is CB really unclear on the concept that "better" is an opinion? Or is that perhaps taken as understood?

From the mere fact that some other people claim "better" is an objective standard, it does not follow that CB does so in this case. Are you paying enough attention to what CB actually says?

I think I'm paying more than enough attention.

He's changed what he has said throughout the thread. A prior poster documented the evolution (heh heh) of his usage of the term in his use of the connotations of growth and progress. CB is insistent on using the word evolution and is extremely loath to just label change as change so as to avoid seeming to argue that the change is anything other than different people writing different rules to appeal to different tastes and not some forward moving, inevitable progress in game design.

If he doesn't want to claim that newer games are better than older games there are ways to talk about the observable fact that different games have different rules and are designed differently and that appeal to different people without talking about games evolving.

Quote from: The Ent;847489You old dudes are like totally, like, talking about really old stuff :p

I can't intelligently talk about my lumbago, but if you like, I could tell you about my shoulder separation. That's fairly new.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;847089I personally think that an additive system was a good change.  It's easier for the human brain, apparently.  Or at least so I heard.

Skipping the added work is easier on my brain. Noticing whether one number is greater than another doesn't even involve conscious arithmetic!

Adding a couple of small numbers beforehand is still in the category of pretty trivial, though. It seems to me ludicrous to make a big deal of this -- all the more so in light of the great increase in complexity from old D&D to the WotC versions. People swallow the camel and balk at the crumb because they've become habituated to it.

QuoteBut I'll also concede that not everyone would like it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847487...yes, I've dropped a deck of punch cards when I didn't bother punching the sequence numbers.

I personally prefer a series of if statements where the "else" condition is "go to end of function."  It's more wordy, but each if statement tests for exactly one desired condition, and it makes it a HELL of a lot clearer what's going on.

Of course, when I was told that I "write C like a COBOL programmer" I took it as a compliment.  I don't think it was intended as one, but too bad.:p

Before the DMG came out we'd take old decks of punch cards no one was using for programming any more, and mark them up, and use them to randomly generate dungeons...

How far does your character travel before reaching a new door, dead end, or side passage?

Randomly shuffle the punch card deck and start with the top row. Count over... first hole punch you get to is how many feet in 10' increments you have to travel to reach a side passage. Row below it determines whether it's a left or right angled passageway. If the hole has been outlined with a marker, it's a door. We marked the cards with other symbols for traps, statues, and unusual features

If you reach the end of a line without having a single hole punched out, corridor ends in a dead end. Roll for a secret door.

...and so on.

Quote from: vini_lessa;847188Oh I don't see a problem with that word. See, I'd argue we do have objective criteria for judging game designs and that's presentation, easiness use and learn, speed of play, and accomplishment of stated goals. And that involves everything you cite in your post (unified mechanics, simpler math, less idiosyncrasy, etc), and the reason why I think the early 80's to mid 90's was the period with more crap designs ever released.

Presentation is not a criterion; valuing one presentation over another is. Whence that valuation? Is it inherent in nature like the value of Pi? No: it is like the value of pie, a matter of one's very personal palate and preference.

Easiness to use and learn can to some extent be quantified, though it depends to another extent on who is using and learning it. Of course, it's hard to get much easier than Tic Tac Toe (except that Snakes and Ladders removes the whole element of choice). You're free to choose that as the highest value -- in which case Candyland is presumably superior to D&D -- but that's your choice. Every other person has the same liberty, and may choose a different set of trade-off priorities.

Speed of Play is likewise.

Accomplishment of stated goals is a sound criterion for assessing a design, unless one goes by a dishonest statement. However, in the field at hand people are typically not so much concerned with the satisfaction a design gives the designer. Rather, when they speak of "better" or "worse" they are focused on their own likes and dislikes.

Quote from: Bren;847490I can't intelligently talk about my lumbago, but if you like, I could tell you about my shoulder separation. That's fairly new.

Oh I know lots 'bout lumbago, had it pretty bad 7 years ago :)
(Then got rid of it more or less, allthough it returns sometimes)

Hope your shoulder isn't too bad atm! :)

Quote from: The Ent;847502Hope your shoulder isn't too bad atm! :)

Thanks! Not too bad to prevent me from wasting time typing forum posts in between organizing factions for my campaign.

Quote from: Bren;847516Thanks! Not too bad to prevent me from wasting time typing forum posts in between organizing factions for my campaign.

Good to hear! :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847232Hush, you and your "knowing what words actually mean,"

No, I just make stuff up.

Knowledge is subjective.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847479...okay, there are enough layers of quotation and response that I'm no longer sure who is responding to what any more.  I think I misunderstood your comment.

Kind of like if-statements nested eight or ten deep.  At some point you lose track of what the hell's going on.

It went to Deuce and then Advantage somebody about ten times, so I lost count.

I tend to page down on the "I said, you said, I said, you said" posts.

Double post. Sorry.

Quote from: PhillipAccomplishment of stated goals is a sound criterion for assessing a design, unless one goes by a dishonest statement. However, in the field at hand people are typically not so much concerned with the satisfaction a design gives the designer. Rather, when they speak of "better" or "worse" they are focused on their own likes and dislikes.

This is the essence of the matter, I think. It is possible, IMHO, to quantify and measure things like presentation (layout, organization, etc), easiness of use (simple sum is good, complex math is not, as is consulting of half-dozen tables for different tasks - and really, saying you memorized them only speaks to the complexity of the object), speed of play (come on, it only takes a clock for this), etc.

But the point is, in the end, familiarity is the single most important factor in this hobby. Chances are, the rules that introduced you to the hobby (or perhaps another early ruleset) will paint how you perceive it, interact with it, understand it, and what you expect from it, for the rest of your life. And because of this, judging games in a reasonable way is so difficult.

I think a good first step point is wondering how a novice to the hobby would react to exposition to rules X, Y or Z and then take note. Or at least trying this as a mental exercise. "Would a novice find it easier to add +1 or -1 here, or open a book to consult half-a-dozen tables across different pages ?"

I can choose to make a novice's opinion what matters to me, or another novice's, or no novices. That choice is utterly subjective, as much as an alternative such as going by what a columnist, academy or Gallup poll says.

After that, anyone can come up with metrics by the yard. "60% of finches prefer this edition as cage liner," whatever. That doesn't make the initial choice of what to value anything other than an opinion!

Quote from: Phillip;847598I can choose to make a novice's opinion what matters to me, or another novice's, or no novices. That choice is utterly subjective, as much as an alternative such as going by what a columnist, academy or Gallup poll says.

You scooped me.

In addition, most RPGs are not written for novices nor are they run by novices, so using how a rule or game is perceived by a novice as the main criteria has some obvious issues.

How about the criteria "speed of play" ? Is it also subjective for you guys ? If yes, how so ? Here, lemme propose a comparison:

Shadowrun 4e vs Dungeon World.

1) Character creation. Whats faster, the point-buy one (Shadowrun) or the "fill the form" one (Dungeon World) ?

2) Combat mechanics. Whats faster, the highly structured one (Shadowrun) or the highly abstracted one (Dungeon World) ?

Do you think its possible to reach an objective conclusion here ?

Quote from: Itachi;847615How about the criteria "speed of play" ? Is it also subjective for you guys ? If yes, how so ? Here, lemme propose a comparison:

Shadowrun 4e vs Dungeon World.

1) Character creation. Whats faster, the point-buy one (Shadowrun) or the "fill the form" one (Dungeon World) ?

2) Combat mechanics. Whats faster, the highly structured one (Shadowrun) or the highly abstracted one (Dungeon World) ?

Do you think its possible to reach an objective conclusion here ?

More to the point, "so what?"  If somebody wants to painstakingly construct their character, and many people do, the "speed of character creation" is irrelevant.

We can measure many objective but meaningless things, like weight of paper, font, and size of type.  That doesn't mean it's worthwhile.

So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

Quote from: Itachi;847620So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

If you define "play."  It is possible to measure how long it takes X number of players and X number of NPCs to complete one round of combat, for instance.

The relevant question, however, is still "so what."

We can also objectively count the number of six sided dice on the table.  I, and I suspect nobody else either, has any interest in "objective but trivial."

Quote from: Itachi;847620So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

No.

A beginner with a system will always be slower than an experienced player of that system.

Even experienced players might not know, or care, about the rules, so might need assistance.

Some people take longer to roll dice - believe me, I have played with someone who shakes the dice several times, pauses, shakes them again, gets ready to roll, shakes them again and then, for good measure, shakes them a final time, each shaking taking about 10 seconds.

So, what you need is a group of people who know all the games you are going to measure really well, who don't chit-chat, who don't shake dice for a long time and who just roll the dice, get the results, mark them down, on to the next one. Basically, robots.

Games work at different levels and the speed of play is different. RuneQuest lovingly describes a combat, HeroQuest can do a whole combat in a single roll. Does that make HeroQuest objectively better?

Quote from: Itachi;847620So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

Yes, one can measure speed of play at least to an extent.  However, whether "speed of play" is an important design criteria is subjective.  I demand fast, abstract combat because I get bored by combat in RPGs that regularly lasts more than about 10 minutes. I demand fast character creation because I what to spend my time as a player playing my character not designing my character and as a GM I have no interest in carefully building NPC to get their points right or the like, it's a fucking waste of my limited time.  Other people, just as  reasonable and rational as I am, however, have no problem with RPG combats that average 40-60 minutes and take 5 to 10 minutes to setup with minis and terrain and love spending hours creating a character and referring to 6 to 10 rulebooks during the process.

So is "speed of play" measurable? Sure. Does a game's "speed of play" make it objectively better or worse than another game? Not really as whether "speed of play" to a desired goal of game design varies from person to person.

Quote from: Itachi;847620So, thats a yes ? You agree we can measure speed of play ?

You can measure speed of play but if the results are better or worse as far enjoying the game goes is a matter of taste.

Quote from: RandallS;847650Yes, one can measure speed of play at least to an extent.  However, whether "speed of play" is an important design criteria is subjective.  I demand fast, abstract combat because I get bored by combat in RPGs that regularly lasts more than about 10 minutes. I demand fast character creation because I what to spend my time as a player playing my character not designing my character and as a GM I have no interest in carefully building NPC to get their points right or the like, it's a fucking waste of my limited time.  Other people, just as  reasonable and rational as I am, however, have no problem with RPG combats that average 40-60 minutes and take 5 to 10 minutes to setup with minis and terrain and love spending hours creating a character and referring to 6 to 10 rulebooks during the process.

So is "speed of play" measurable? Sure. Does a game's "speed of play" make it objectively better or worse than another game? Not really as whether "speed of play" to a desired goal of game design varies from person to person.

Exactly. See I'm the opposite of what you enjoy. To me if a combat takes 10 min. then it's probably not worth doing and while I do enjoy abstract concepts in RPGs, a good combat system is something that I really enjoy. Our 4E combats tend to run in the 30 to 45 minute range with big boss fights taking approx. an hour. I do get the occasional 15 min ones but that's usually a rare instance.

I also agree that the speed of play is subjectively better (or worse) for gamers and their preferred style.

Walls and walls of text..see what happens when we bandy the word "objective" about? It's a TASTE EXPLOSION!:-)

Quote from: cranebump;847686Walls and walls of text..see what happens when we bandy the word "objective" about? It's a TASTE EXPLOSION!:-)

* insert blowjob joke here *

Allow me to settle the question on measuring the quality of RPGs:

1) My favorite game is the best.

2) Your favorite game suxxors.

3) If your favorite game is also my favorite game, you are playing it wrong.

You are welcome, I am here all week, please try the chicken.

Quote from: Spinachcat;847728Allow me to settle the question on measuring the quality of RPGs:

1) My favorite game is the best.

2) Your favorite game suxxors.

3) If your favorite game is also my favorite game, you are playing it wrong.

I'd sig this if I was still sigging quotes.

Quote from: Itachi;847615How about the criteria "speed of play" ? Is it also subjective for you guys ? If yes, how so ? Here, lemme propose a comparison:

Shadowrun 4e vs Dungeon World.

1) Character creation. Whats faster, the point-buy one (Shadowrun) or the "fill the form" one (Dungeon World) ?

2) Combat mechanics. Whats faster, the highly structured one (Shadowrun) or the highly abstracted one (Dungeon World) ?

Do you think its possible to reach an objective conclusion here ?

If you can get a quantified metric of "speed of play" -- or ANYTHING else -- it's still a subjective choice how important it is.

End of story, children. Even if Big Sky Daddy says, "I say that guy's priorities are the One True Way, and I am the LORD,"  the Big Lebowski really is correct. At least, that's my opinion ...

I personally don't like D&D system parts but I love some of the setting conceits. Also, the OSR stuff I have picked up and 5e are generally fast to prep, easy to run, and fast to create characters. There's not a lot of fuss to get from idea to play. That can make the "whole experience" more fun. It remains one of the easiest games to teach and comes with the "popularity" button firmly pushed (especially with something shiny and sexy like 5e).

I can accomplish some of these goals with my favorite game. I just have to make characters for newbies, prep several standard convention scenarios or "one shots", and put some effort into how MFG is going to work from game to game. But I like the fiddly bits in certain places. It suites what I want now.

I'm sure YM(does)V, you probably like your fiddly bits in other places, and I'm cool with that.

In related news, the only time I apologize for D&D is to my long-standing childhood friends who have diligently remained by my side despite the long string of absurd face-hiding-wincing-in-shame fuck-ups I have perpetrated against them. Since D&D was the most common game ran in my childhood, it naturally comes up in said apology. My friends are smart enough to know (and remember) that those fuck-ups are squarely my fault and had nothing to do with the game. I of course, took much longer to realize this, hence my deep and abiding love for them.

AD&D has nothing to apologize for.  If anything, other RPGs need to apologize to it.

My recent, short lived AD&D campaign, mainly died because we just don't play that way.  I really wanted to do it by the book but my players fixated on talking to a humanoid frog for the first session and spent the second session pushing each other in a pool and partying with the fair folk.  When the fair folk took them to a dungeon instead of showing them the way out of the forest  one player asked "Is every npc in your world out to screw us?"  Which, given what she did with the satyr, seems like an insincere question?

I think AD&D is marvelous for what it is but many of the accusations leveled at it back in the day are apt.  It is at its heart, a war game.  You can do many other things with it but that's really the heart of the matter.  Knowing what you are and doing what you do well isn't something to apologize for.

Even so, I'll stick to Rolemaster and GURPS until the day when I can convince players to suffer through my own games for more than one session.  :D

Quote from: PhillipIf you can get a quantified metric of "speed of play" -- or ANYTHING else -- it's still a subjective choice how important it is.

Speed of play is always important, no matter your design goal. Lets say we have two games A and B aiming to the same overall playstyle and goals. If game A does everything that B does but also manage to be faster at it, then game A will be better.

And this closes the issue, really: AD&D (1e and 2e) are considered the worst D&D editions simply because it reaches it's design goals in a manner way more inefficient than any other edition.

Quote from: RPGPundit;849148AD&D has nothing to apologize for.  If anything, other RPGs need to apologize to it.

Agreed.  Or so says my personal bias.  :D

Yet 3e and 4e is slower in actual play than 1e and 2e by a magnitude, sheer combat alone ensures that. Are you thus suggesting by that metric that 3e and 4e should be considered even more worse than 1e and 2e, the currently worst editions according to "received opinion"? And that this is an objectively closed case?

Quote from: Itachi;849970Speed of play is always important, no matter your design goal. Lets say we have two games A and B aiming to the same overall playstyle and goals. If game A does everything that B does but also manage to be faster at it, then game A will be better.

No. It will be faster.

No everyone wants a faster paced game regardless of what else it does. For some players, a slower game allows more time to consider their next action, to think of something interesting for their character to see, or even to jot down some notes and quotes while other players are resolving actions. You may not want any of that, but that doesn't mean that no one does.

If creating characters is fun it doesn't need to be fast. I don't get this "I want chargen to be fast so I can start playing" thing. I want chargen to be fun because I am already playing.

Likewise for combat, encounters, puzzles and trap and I the rest of it. Rpgs aren't supposed to be a race to see who can get to the end quickest. Its all about the journey.

Quote from: Itachi;849970Speed of play is always important, no matter your design goal. Lets say we have two games A and B aiming to the same overall playstyle and goals. If game A does everything that B does but also manage to be faster at it, then game A will be better.

No.

That is your OPINION.

Real life getting in the way is certainly the most common game-ending reason I have encountered.  Second most common is character creation that takes too damn long.

Quote from: Old One Eye;850038Real life getting in the way is certainly the most common game-ending reason I have encountered.  Second most common is character creation that takes too damn long.

Same here. Which incidentally is why I feel every game should have a character generation app! :)

Quote from: The Butcher;850090Same here. Which incidentally is why I feel every game should have a character generation app! :)

Agree with the inclusion of the App. I was going to add something about how I wondered whether the technology produces the effect of players creating characters without understanding much of the system, but then I remembered most of my players enjoy the game fine without being system masters, so who cares?:-)

Quote from: jibbajibba;849992If creating characters is fun it doesn't need to be fast. I don't get this "I want chargen to be fast so I can start playing" thing.

  I think it makes more sense as part of an overall playstyle that also emphasizes lethality and risk. In games like that, you want fast chargen so players can get back into the action.

Quote from: The Butcher;850090Same here. Which incidentally is why I feel every game should have a character generation app! :)

Or, alternately -- and preferably! -- a GM who shepherds players through the process, instead of sitting back on his fat ass munching Doritos.

Quote from: jibbajibba;849992If creating characters is fun it doesn't need to be fast. I don't get this "I want chargen to be fast so I can start playing" thing. I want chargen to be fun because I am already playing.

Likewise for combat, encounters, puzzles and trap and I the rest of it. Rpgs aren't supposed to be a race to see who can get to the end quickest. Its all about the journey.

Which parts of the journey are most interesting is a question to which different people have different answers. Moreover, the same people can have different answers at different times.

Gygax put "getting on with the adventure" ahead of detailed character generation and combat resolution in OD&D, but went the other way with Dangerous Journeys (which also included a less detailed subset of the full Mythus system).

A modular, extensible approach can make it easy to tailor the mix to the preferences of a given group. This means taking the simplest form as a "baseline" assumption, whereas the tendency has been to take a more elaborate set of rules as the starting point.

Quote from: Ravenswing;850104Or, alternately -- and preferably! -- a GM who shepherds players through the process, instead of sitting back on his fat ass munching Doritos.

With 1st ed. Chivalry & Sorcery, I'd say automation is preferable because so much of the process is the kind of drudgery that doesn't really require a person to do it. Some of the few choices might not actually be choices for the character in question, and some folks might wish to generate those probabilistically as well (tables of the sort being common artifacts in the early years of FRP).

C&S 2nd ed. went to a points-budget system, explicitly turning more things into player choices. That still left a fair bit of dry calculation, the leaving of which to a computer program could make character generation faster and for most people more interesting.

With D&D 4E, I was glad to pass up the design work by letting people who enjoyed it more do it for me. It was nice to have questions asked at a high level (as opposed to the mechanical level). A computer program could be written to allow people to go lower when they want to, otherwise accepting selections on the basis of such questions.

The problem of course is that texts are copyrighted, so there are limits to how much one can copy to use in a published program without permission.

Quote from: Itachi;849970Speed of play is always important, no matter your design goal. Lets say we have two games A and B aiming to the same overall playstyle and goals. If game A does everything that B does but also manage to be faster at it, then game A will be better.

And this closes the issue, really: AD&D (1e and 2e) are considered the worst D&D editions simply because it reaches it's design goals in a manner way more inefficient than any other edition.

"Same overall playstyle and goals" presumably already includes a shared opinion as to the proper priorities of how to spend time. That makes your claim basically meaningless.

FASTEST GAME POSSIBLE (first approximation):
1) Toss coin.
2) Heads = you win.
3) Tails = you lose.

That rule set is also about as brief and easy to understand as you'll find.

But is it really optimal? Evidently not, since hardly anyone actually prefers it.

Many beholders happen to see beauty in the same things. We can design for that demographic without condemning dissenters as "wrong."

If such condemnation is the aim of calling something "objectively better," then it serves only to foster unpleasantness.

On the other hand, it could be shorthand for "objectively a closer fit to the specified criteria." That's obviously not what people mean when they're fiercely claiming supremacy for a criterion itself, however.

Quote from: Itachi;849970Speed of play is always important, no matter your design goal. Lets say we have two games A and B aiming to the same overall playstyle and goals. If game A does everything that B does but also manage to be faster at it, then game A will be better.

And this closes the issue, really: AD&D (1e and 2e) are considered the worst D&D editions simply because it reaches it's design goals in a manner way more inefficient than any other edition.

This is really fucking stupid. AD&D is a faster and lighter system than 3.x and 4E. You're nuts.

Quote from: Phillip;850121"Same overall playstyle and goals" presumably already includes a shared opinion as to the proper priorities of how to spend time. That makes your claim basically meaningless.

FASTEST GAME POSSIBLE (first approximation):
1) Toss coin.
2) Heads = you win.
3) Tails = you lose.

That rule set is also about as brief and easy to understand as you'll find.

rolling a dice is faster than a coin toss.

Quote from: Ulairi;850128This is really fucking stupid.

You said it. I'd say it was the dumbest thing I've heard online today, but I was just reading a story about Frank Missler...

Quote from: TristramEvans;850130rolling a dice is faster than a coin toss.

No. It depends how high you toss the coin and how long your shake the dice.

Quote from: TristramEvans;850131You said it. I'd say it was the dumbest thing I've heard online today, but I was just reading a story about Frank Missler...

Same here, except for me, it's the Trump sound bites coming my social network feeds.

I hate the entire fucking chargen process.  If it takes more time then 3d6 in order six times it's stupidly overcomplicated.

I'd rather have a colonoscopy.  And yes, I have data.

Quote from: Bren;850149No. It depends how high you toss the coin and how long your shake the dice.

assuming you just do the bare minimum required:

coin toss: place coin on thumb, flick thumb, catch coin
dice: pick up dice and roll it on table

granted, anyone could extend either to any span of time

Quote from: Phillip;850121"Same overall playstyle and goals" presumably already includes a shared opinion as to the proper priorities of how to spend time. That makes your claim basically meaningless.

FASTEST GAME POSSIBLE (first approximation):
1) Toss coin.
2) Heads = you win.
3) Tails = you lose.

That rule set is also about as brief and easy to understand as you'll find.

But is it really optimal? Evidently not, since hardly anyone actually prefers it.

Please explain how your proposed fastest system meets dude's criteria of doing everything that system B (ADnD) does.  Because it sounds like you are arguing against something that nobody claimed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;849992If creating characters is fun it doesn't need to be fast. I don't get this "I want chargen to be fast so I can start playing" thing. I want chargen to be fun because I am already playing.

Likewise for combat, encounters, puzzles and trap and I the rest of it. Rpgs aren't supposed to be a race to see who can get to the end quickest. Its all about the journey.

Yep, pretty much this. As I've extensively played the last 3 editions of the game I've come to the conclusion that combat which takes less than 10 minutes isnt worth the time to roll up the dice and combat that takes over an hour is probably too long. A nice middle ground between 20 to 40 minutes (given or take 5) is our groups preferable wheel house.

As for Chargen, depends on level and allowed supplements. I can make a 1st level 4e character (theme and all) in about 10 min with the program. Takes a bit longer if I do it without the program because writing it down just takes longer.

Quote from: Ulairi;850128This is really fucking stupid. AD&D is a faster and lighter system than 3.x and 4E. You're nuts.

Here's the 20 page summary of how initiative works in AD&D 1st Edition. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=FE&fileid=263&watchfile=0)

Basically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Many people believe they are. Virtually all of them are deceiving themselves.

What most people are playing is a version of Basic D&D with a couple of bits form the AD&D core rulebooks grafted on. (These bits almost always include selecting race and class separately. They only rarely include weapon speed factors, and they virtually never include all the rules for weapon speed factors.) The version of Basic D&D might be the one they started with; or it might be the one that their DM (or their DM's original DM) started with. But it's still Basic D&D with a couple of bits from AD&D.

Not using weapon speeds is like ignoring the chart with modifiers for weapon type vs. AC.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850234I hate the entire fucking chargen process.  If it takes more time then 3d6 in order six times it's stupidly overcomplicated.

I'd rather have a colonoscopy.  And yes, I have data.

Of your colonoscopy? :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;850288Basically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Playing the game RAW and playing the game as intended are two entirely different things.

So, I reject your premise.

Quote from: TristramEvans;850315Playing the game RAW and playing the game as intended are two entirely different things.

So, I reject your premise.

I reject anything he says on this, simply because he claims AD&D 2e sucks.  No game sucks.

Quote from: TristramEvans;850315Playing the game RAW and playing the game as intended are two entirely different things.

  Weren't some of those infamous Gygax editorials in Dragon about the conceit that the two were the same thing?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;850325I reject anything he says on this, simply because he claims AD&D 2e sucks.  No game sucks.

F.A.T.A.L
Poison'd
Maid
4E D&D
Space Opera
d20 Gamma World

I can go on.....

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;850332Weren't some of those infamous Gygax editorials in Dragon about the conceit that the two were the same thing?

My theory is that TSR being inundated with D&D questions, the practical issues in running competitive D&D tournaments, and a lack of empathy for some styles of playing D&D combined to create the rules are the bible attitude of Gygax's Dragon Magazine articles.

The biggest factor was probably all the damn questions and phone calls than the other two.

Reading through the various anecdotes,  Playing at the World, and Hawk & Moor I am left with the impression that early TSR in one respect was a place under siege beset with similar issues as when a forum starts getting 100 times the traffic and only have one or two moderators.

Also leaking through was some disbelief of that some questions were even being asked as the staff considered the answer blatantly obvious.

The problem in my view with how it was all handled was that the fix was "better" rules as opposed to come up with a better way to teach people how to use the rules. Granted OD&D needed a lot better presentation a lot of rules clarification so some rules work was unavoidable.

For me it wasn't until reading Matt Finch Old School Primer that I felt I mastered the D&D rules. The primer didn't have any rules in it but it effectively taught me HOW Matt Finch used the D&D rules which opened my mind as to how to use the classic D&D rules in the way I like.

I think if things went down this route the industry would have been better off than what we had. The attitude the next edition's rules are better and will fix everything is wrong today.

Again I don't think that the older rules are beyond reproach and are the best.   Only that focus should be on figuring out better ways of teaching people to be the referee and player that they want to be regardless of the actual rules being used. And with the ongoing impact of the internet and computers on the industry, we are already in the golden age for this for all RPGs and to just the older editions of games.

Quote from: estar;850341My theory is that TSR being inundated with D&D questions, the practical issues in running competitive D&D tournaments, and a lack of empathy for some styles of playing D&D combined to create the rules are the bible attitude of Gygax's Dragon Magazine articles.

I can tell you that this is indeed the case.  Rob Kuntz and Jim Ward are still rattling around, ask them if you don't believe me.

By mid 1975 TSR was receiving dozens of letters per week about D&D.  Dave and Gary were gobsmacked; Vol 3 plainly said "decide how you want it to be, and then make it just that way," but people wanted to have the "right" answers.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;850288Here's the 20 page summary of how initiative works in AD&D 1st Edition. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=FE&fileid=263&watchfile=0)

Basically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Many people believe they are. Virtually all of them are deceiving themselves.

What most people are playing is a version of Basic D&D with a couple of bits form the AD&D core rulebooks grafted on. (These bits almost always include selecting race and class separately. They only rarely include weapon speed factors, and they virtually never include all the rules for weapon speed factors.) The version of Basic D&D might be the one they started with; or it might be the one that their DM (or their DM's original DM) started with. But it's still Basic D&D with a couple of bits from AD&D.

Those aren't the rules for AD&D 2e. And it too is labeled AD&D. 2e Core rules are Group d10 v. Group d10, add Group mod.

Group initiative with Individual modifier is optional, just like Individual initiative with Individual modifier -- and that's where weapons speeds are located. Yes, Weapon Speed is optional just as the Weapon v. Armor table is optional. All those widgets start in the 'Off' position in 2e.

Once you understand that the role of the DM is actually that of judge/referee, combat is a hell of a lot easier to run. I ditched AD&D initiative and combat sequence a long time ago and approached it as a game, not a simulation, using my own fucking brain to figure out what made the most sense instead of relying on a ton of ambiguous rules. If I'm playing SFB or ASL without a ref, of course I need tons of combat rules. If I *do* have a ref, who I believe to be impartial, 3/4 of those rules are unnecessary. The DM should set the scene, tell the players what is possible, and explain the outcome based on their actions.

The biggest mistake ever made in RPGs was the move away from ref to simulation via rules.

ITT: Delusional people claiming they don't change the rules while listing all the ways they change the rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850343By mid 1975 TSR was receiving dozens of letters per week about D&D.  Dave and Gary were gobsmacked; Vol 3 plainly said "decide how you want it to be, and then make it just that way," but people wanted to have the "right" answers.

I wonder why so many folks have such a hard time wrapping their head around the obvious fact that this -- as with so many other gaming controversies -- is not an either-or.  It's a continuum.  It's not that "chargen more complex than 3d6 six times" is stupid: it's just more than you personally want.  It's not that rules more complex than OD&D are a waste of time -- it's that some people want more structure than others.

And given that there are a lot of freeform RPers out there who use -- or need, or want -- no black-letter rules at all, no doubt a lot of them would sneer at those of us who lean on the crutch of OD&D and wonder how in the frigging hell anyone could possibly need 112 pages of rules in order to roleplay.

But if we didn't argue incessantly over which method of playing Let's Pretend was more or less mature, perverted, ethical, moral, creative, accurate, realistic, sexist, racist or objectively more fun whatever would we talk about? :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;850288Here's the 20 page summary of how initiative works in AD&D 1st Edition. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=FE&fileid=263&watchfile=0)
.

I just read those rules and...first off, its only 15 pages because of the incredibly bad formatting and citations on each page. Secondly it doesnt just cover initiative, it covers a ton of other stuff. Which leads to the third point: they rules arent actually that complex, there are just a copious amount of extra rules for very specific alternate situations that might come up.

So, going through it step by step...

Lets say a PC party and a group of snorks meet, parlay quickly breaks down, and a fight begins...

1. Determine if anyone is surprised.
Nope, optional rule that doesnt apply. So we skip pages 1 and 2.

2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
Nah, distance is known. Another optional step that can be discarded.

3. Both parties declare their intentions.
PCs say what they're going to do. Gm decides what monsters are going to do. Standard stuff.

4. Pre-Initiative Actions are Resolved
All optional special cases. Skip this as well.

5. Resolve Psionic Combat.
No Psions in the party. Skip.

6. Determine Initiative by rolling a D6 for each side.
So, this is just like FASERIP Initiative, in that one entire side acts at once, followed by their opponents. So far, this is actually faster than modern D&D Initiative systems.

So everyone uses the same Initiative, but if anyone has any Initiative penalties, these are applied individually. So even if your team goes first, you might go later if you're using a slow and clumsy weapon or are suffering from some disability. Makes sense.

GM has the option of choosing one exceptional monster from a group and rolling a d8 for its Initiative instead of d6. Can see where this might occasionally be useful, but doesnt apply to this situation so...

Oh, thats it. Thats the Initiative rules.

Or, thats your giant strawman up in flames, I should say.

Quote from: TristramEvans;850431Oh, thats it. Thats the Initiative rules.

Was it written in triple spaced 72 point font or something?

Quote from: Bren;850458Was it written in triple spaced 72 point font or something?

It just gives one step per page and then lists all the options for very specific cases, with page/book numbers. Many of them from alternate sources like Dragon, Unearthed Arcana, etc.

Why are Surprise and Encounter Distance included in the process of Initiative? They are their own functions and often handled on the GM side of the screen. That would be like including the Random Encouter Table and Number Appearing rolls into Initiative. Strange.

Quote from: Opaopajr;850491Why are Surprise and Encounter Distance included in the process of Initiative? They are their own functions and often handled on the GM side of the screen. That would be like including the Random Encouter Table and Number Appearing rolls into Initiative. Strange.

Padding, basically.

It was meant to make a very simple rule look needlessly complex.

Quote from: Phillip;850125Many beholders happen to see beauty in the same things.

..and then the beholders shoot the beauty with their death rays!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850234I hate the entire fucking chargen process.  If it takes more time then 3d6 in order six times it's stupidly overcomplicated.

I am okay with 15 minute chargen.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850343By mid 1975 TSR was receiving dozens of letters per week about D&D.  Dave and Gary were gobsmacked; Vol 3 plainly said "decide how you want it to be, and then make it just that way," but people wanted to have the "right" answers.

On one hand, its quite understandable. What mainstream game before D&D ever gave the players such latitude to create the game experience?  

Before D&D, you bought the game in the box, read the rules, played by the rules, rinse and repeat, so for many people, the freedom to experiment was too foreign an idea.

Of course, "the right answers" published in the Dragon only helped the cause of the rules lawyers who could now dig through Dragon issues to "prove" their DM did something "wrong."

Quote from: Spinachcat;850569Of course, "the right answers" published in the Dragon only helped the cause of the rules lawyers who could now dig through Dragon issues to "prove" their DM did something "wrong."

Back when we started playing we argued about rules a fair bit. It was, in part, a carry over from playing Avalon Hill and SPI war games that had a fixed rule set and no referee providing oversight. So people would discuss and argue over a rules interpretation in a wargame. But there was a natural balance that prevented people from too much stupid arguing or overly favorable interpretations with wargames. The rule that gave you a big advantage this time, would work against you the next time you played the game. So people became accustomed to looking at what was a reasonable, balanced, fair interpretation of the language for the attacker and the defender rather than just nit picking the shit out of grammar.

When we picked up D&D we did the same kind of arguing. And since most of us played in games run by different GMs and many of us who were arguing for an interpretation today as a player were going to get stuck using the same interpretation tomorrow when we were the GM. Failure to do so would open that GM up to ruthless mocking for being a hypocrite who was, at best, one step removed from being a cheating bastard.

Also, back then it was clearly the DM's game. So we all knew and agreed that when push came to shove, the DM could and would say, "Well that's not the way in works in my game." And the argument was over.

Quote from: Spinachcat;850569On one hand, its quite understandable. What mainstream game before D&D ever gave the players such latitude to create the game experience?

Many miniature wargame rules.  They gave the basic rules, but did not give scenarios, or battlefields, or anything about actual wars of the period.  A LOT of supplementary work was necessary before running a CHAINMAIL battle, not including getting miniatures!

I have no experience with pre-Chainmail wargames so I can't disagree with you, but other than Little Wars (and its variants), what were the mainstream wargames?  My only pre-1970s wargame play was Avalon Hill's Tactics and Blitzkrieg and those were chit wargames with boards.

Quote from: jibbajibba;849992I want chargen to be fun because I am already playing.

I've never thought of it in that way, but you are right, chargen is part of the game itself.

Quote from: Bren;850149No. It depends how high you toss the coin and how long your shake the dice.

One of the players in an old gaming group used to shake the dice, pause, shake them again, pause, shake them again, say something, shake them again, pause, shake them again, look puzzled when we said "Just roll the bloody dice", shake them again, pause, shake them again and then roll.

In RQ, we had a roll for attack and then a roll for damage, both with the same effect. Really annoying.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850234I hate the entire fucking chargen process.  If it takes more time then 3d6 in order six times it's stupidly overcomplicated.

O/A/BX/(and maybee even 2e) D&D had pretty fast chargen. Roll dice, choose class and race. Maybe buy some gear if shopping isnt part of the startup RP. Select one or two spells and off we go. Ive never seen chargen take more than 5 minutes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;850591I have no experience with pre-Chainmail wargames so I can't disagree with you, but other than Little Wars (and its variants), what were the mainstream wargames?  My only pre-1970s wargame play was Avalon Hill's Tactics and Blitzkrieg and those were chit wargames with boards.

He said miniatures wargaming. It's an important distinction from board game wargames that usually featured chits for units and a hexagonal or area based map (area based is like Risk). Some board games allowed you to create your own scenarios, but many, probably most did not.

Miniatures wargames, on the other hand, often included playing extended campaigns where the players recruited (and painted) their own armies or built them via a point buy system. The campaign featured a series of battles rather than just a single engagement. Unit losses and recruitment was tracked over time. Big campaigns included a large scale map or maps, teams of players might run entire countries or alliances of countries combining strategic level play on a paper map with sand table based miniatures combat.

Many of the elements of the campaign style of D&D you see in 1972-1976 are direct outgrowths of what was already being done by minis gamers.

Quote from: soltakss;850603I've never thought of it in that way, but you are right, chargen is part of the game itself.

I would say only in Traveller. For other games it's a necessary prequel, like setting the table or even cooking the dinner. It's not the meal.

Quote from: Bren;850624I would say only in Traveller. For other games it's a necessary prequel, like setting the table or even cooking the dinner. It's not the meal.

  I don't know that I'd say 'only' in Traveller--I think chargen can be part of the game when it's a group activity, and involves defining the party and the world beyond just the individual characters. That's probably too narrative, new school, or swinish for this place, though. :)

Quote from: soltakss;850604One of the players in an old gaming group used to shake the dice, pause, shake them again, pause, shake them again, say something, shake them again, pause, shake them again, look puzzled when we said "Just roll the bloody dice", shake them again, pause, shake them again and then roll.

In RQ, we had a roll for attack and then a roll for damage, both with the same effect. Really annoying.

Yes. OCD meets die rolling.

The other annoying thing is the person who throws the dice so hard they knock over miniatures, bounce off the table, and roll under the sofa and they do it about every other time they throw the dice for anything important. I get that some people just have Hulk hands with hard to control super strength, but for Crom's sake once you've been rolling dice for 20 frickin years you'd think you get get it done right at least 80-90% of the time.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;850626I don't know that I'd say 'only' in Traveller--I think chargen can be part of the game when it's a group activity, and involves defining the party and the world beyond just the individual characters. That's probably too narrative, new school, or swinish for this place, though. :)

It's not really a narrative/non-narrative thing. Other than the fact that I play RPGs to actually play the RPG. The other stuff associated with playing RPGs, like GM planning, talking about or tweaking the pitch or setting, creating characters, picking a time and location, setting up the table, pulling out the dice or setting out minatures - even buying, modifiying, and painting miniatures. All that is part of the prep. Some of it is boring and frankly work. Some of it is fun.

I like GM prep. I find talking about characters is useful. Sometimes it's fun. But it's not playing the game.

I chose the dinner party analogy with intent. Setting a time and place for dinner, shopping for the meal, and arranging the place settings are all useful. Cooking with your friends or family is fun. But neither one is eating the meal. They are the things you do to have a meal.

Quote from: Old One Eye;850259Please explain how your proposed fastest system meets dude's criteria of doing everything that system B (ADnD) does.  Because it sounds like you are arguing against something that nobody claimed.

AD&D was not specified. The claim presented was apparently universal, for any and every set of priorities. My point is that quickest completion of the game is obviously not universally a priority at all, since close enough to nobody in fact chooses the optimally quickest game (or even anything in the same ballpark).

If the criterion is literally "doing everything that AD&D does," then only AD&D itself satisfies it. A faster process is a different process, faster because it does not do something that was adding to the time.

What is actually being specified, then, is "does everything that I value in what AD&D does." Who am I (or anyone else) to insist that you (or anyone else) must share that valuation? What arbitrarily privileges my opinion to make sharing it incumbent upon you?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;850288Here's the 20 page summary of how initiative works in AD&D 1st Edition. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/php4/archive.php?sectioninit=FE&fileid=263&watchfile=0)

Basically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Many people believe they are. Virtually all of them are deceiving themselves.

What most people are playing is a version of Basic D&D with a couple of bits form the AD&D core rulebooks grafted on. (These bits almost always include selecting race and class separately. They only rarely include weapon speed factors, and they virtually never include all the rules for weapon speed factors.) The version of Basic D&D might be the one they started with; or it might be the one that their DM (or their DM's original DM) started with. But it's still Basic D&D with a couple of bits from AD&D.

We call it "just plain D&D." Not that we really give a toss how some self-appointed pundit -- apparently heedless of what the AD&D books say about THE DUNGEON MASTER (all caps and bold in the original) being THE FINAL ARBITER FOR HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN -- chooses to define "actually playing AD&D."

Quote from: soltakss;850604One of the players in an old gaming group used to shake the dice, pause, shake them again, pause, shake them again, say something, shake them again, pause, shake them again, look puzzled when we said "Just roll the bloody dice", shake them again, pause, shake them again and then roll.

In RQ, we had a roll for attack and then a roll for damage, both with the same effect. Really annoying.

HUH??? Roll for attack has the effect of determining whether any roll for damage is applicable in the first place (and, in combination with a parry roll, and/or perhaps a fumble or critical or impale result, applicable to what).

Quote from: Phillip;850734We call it "just plain D&D." Not that we really give a toss how some self-appointed pundit -- apparently heedless of what the AD&D books say about THE DUNGEON MASTER (all caps and bold in the original) being THE FINAL ARBITER FOR HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN -- chooses to define "actually playing AD&D."

Isn't that the same place in the DMG where Gygax places the campaign as second, subordinate to the AD&D game?

EDIT: It's the Afterword, p. 230: "WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.   BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;850745Isn't that the same place in the DMG where Gygax places the campaign as second, subordinate to the AD&D game?

The bold text I had particularly in mind is near the start of the PHB, but the message is repeated throughout the several hundred pages prior to that Afterword in the last of the first three volumes.

QuoteEDIT: It's the Afterword, p. 230: "WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.   BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE."

What does that mean? If you will read the many prior pages, perhaps you will see that it means not being too hasty to cater to whims. The author has pointed out the Scylla and Charybdis that in his view brought many campaigns to untimely ends, and addressed those with advice as to how to avoid them.

Quote from: Phillip;850798What does that mean? If you will read the many prior pages, perhaps you will see that it means not being too hasty to cater to whims. The author has pointed out the Scylla and Charybdis that in his view brought many campaigns to untimely ends, and addressed those with advice as to how to avoid them.

    True, but wouldn't that be assumed under "the campaign" as prioritized over the players, without that odd little bit about "the game itself?" From the opening of the DMG to its closing, there is an undertone--at least in my own reading--that while you're free to improvise and create within the AD&D parameters, stepping outside them is not a good thing. Perhaps this was just a reaction against the way people were 'doing xD&D wrong'--we've certainly seen that sentiment produce enough crazy things over the past forty years, and Gygax had more reason for it than most. Or maybe it was the result of years of experience saying 'varying from these things causes bad campaigns', with the somewhat pompously tongue-in-cheek tone that Gygax apparently used.

   You see similar things in the PHB about "playing the game well" and the like, with the idea that there are certain techniques, parameters, etc. that should be assumed by the AD&D game and play should work within those boundaries. (I was amused to see Gygax wholeheartedly endorse overruling the dice on p. 110 of the DMG. :) ) If D&D was 'make it up', AD&D is 'make it up but within these specific parameters'.

  Of course, I'm a latecomer--started in 1990 or so with a handed-down 1E PHB, 2E DMG and 2E MC--and my interest in this is largely academic. If there's a 'right way' to play AD&D, fine--just make that clear to everyone so they know up front whether the experience the game provides is the one they want. I think a lot of the angst surrounding the D&D family of games is that, through a combination of marketing, misunderstanding and necessity, it wound up being treated as a game to do any flavor of fantasy when it really wasn't suited to that.

Again, if one reads the books, Mr. Gygax explains what the concerns are. He went into more detail in The Dragon about ambitions for a common framework that would enable players from different cities or even countries to play a game called "AD&D" without having to learn a whole new game -- as had often happened with "D&D" -- and to have tournaments and rankings and so on premised on this basis.

As it happened, this has been more fully realized in the Wizards of the Coast era than it was during Gary's tenure at TSR.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;850745Isn't that the same place in the DMG where Gygax places the campaign as second, subordinate to the AD&D game?

Heloooo cherry picker. Arent you special? No. No you arent. You are just pathetic.

QuoteIt is the spirit of the game. Not the letter of the rules which is important. Never hold to the letter as written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by the players. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. May you find it as much a pleasure in doing so as the rest of us.

IE: Dont let the players get out of hand. This is your rules, your world, your players. If you are fair and consistent with your changes then you are playing AD&D as it was meant to be.

Quote from: Omega;850808IE: Dont let the players get out of hand. This is your rules, your world, your players. If you are fair and consistent with your changes then you are playing AD&D as it was meant to be.

Yes. The biggest problem was player boredom. Lots of people had got D&D (with its very little advice) and run give-away games that rocketed characters to godlike status within a year or two. Then they were jaded, and their ennui hardly encouraged new players.

Neither did the opposite extreme of "killer DM."

Nowadays, there seems to be a pretty big influx of people who actually prefer sheer wish fulfillment and put down the challenge that was (and is) essential to many other players' enthusiasm.

Mr Gygax was naturally addressing the situation he saw rather than the fetishes of three decades later.

The importance of tournaments cannot be understated.  In wargames conventions back then tournaments, with prizes, were a big part of it.  When D&D got popular D&D players wanted tournaments too.

The 1976 Origins D&D tournament had 250 players, as opposed to the 10 to 20 of a typical wargame tournament.  You cannot referee that many players with one referee.  Once you have multiple referees for a single "official D&D tournament," you HAVE to set up everything to make the sessions as uniform as you can.

This was, I'm fairly certain, the major reason for Gary's reversing himself from his earlier "make up some shit you think will be fun" attitude.  Once TSR Inc saw D&D tournaments as a major advertising source, it was necessary to serve that principle.

Quote from: Phillip;850740HUH??? Roll for attack has the effect of determining whether any roll for damage is applicable in the first place (and, in combination with a parry roll, and/or perhaps a fumble or critical or impale result, applicable to what).

You are missing the forest for that one tree there.

By "effect," he meant the long wait while the guy got ready to roll the damage die, not that damage was inflicted no matter what the to hit roll turned out to be. And if you want to get really nitpicky, he didn't mention that the opponent's parry or dodge roll which might negate the need for a damage roll. He probably didn't mention any of that other stuff because it had nothing to do with the point he was making.

I see, said the carpenter as he put down his hammer and saw.

Quote from: Phillip;850832I see, said the carpenter as he put down his hammer and saw.

"What's that you say?" said the deaf-mute as he danced with his one-legged wife.

She was a moonshiner's daughter, but I loved her still.

"Why do they put the shore so near the ocean?" asked the rastafarian minister as he twerked with his autistic wife.



What? I wanted to play too... :D

I don't understand this joke.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;850916I don't understand this joke.

I was just being silly.

Quote from: Nexus;850918I was just being silly.

And I was just blinking in neutral incomprehension at the past four posts.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;850951And I was just blinking in neutral incomprehension at the past four posts.

They are plays on words that had a certain nerd popularity around the first part of the last quarter of the previous century.

Quote from: Bren;850978They are plays on words that had a certain nerd popularity around the first part of the last quarter of the previous century.

Or with my grandfather circa 1962.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850980Or with my grandfather circa 1962.

Grampa Gronan, a man ahead of his time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850980Or with my grandfather circa 1962.

And here, I thought you were a grandfather by 1962...:p

Now I get it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;850431I just read those rules and...first off, its only 15 pages because of the incredibly bad formatting and citations on each page. Secondly it doesnt just cover initiative, it covers a ton of other stuff. Which leads to the third point: they rules arent actually that complex, there are just a copious amount of extra rules for very specific alternate situations that might come up.

So, going through it step by step...

Lets say a PC party and a group of snorks meet, parlay quickly breaks down, and a fight begins...

1. Determine if anyone is surprised.
Nope, optional rule that doesnt apply. So we skip pages 1 and 2.

2. Determine distance, if unknown, between the parties.
Nah, distance is known. Another optional step that can be discarded.

3. Both parties declare their intentions.
PCs say what they're going to do. Gm decides what monsters are going to do. Standard stuff.

4. Pre-Initiative Actions are Resolved
All optional special cases. Skip this as well.

5. Resolve Psionic Combat.
No Psions in the party. Skip.

6. Determine Initiative by rolling a D6 for each side.
So, this is just like FASERIP Initiative, in that one entire side acts at once, followed by their opponents. So far, this is actually faster than modern D&D Initiative systems.

So everyone uses the same Initiative, but if anyone has any Initiative penalties, these are applied individually. So even if your team goes first, you might go later if you're using a slow and clumsy weapon or are suffering from some disability. Makes sense.

GM has the option of choosing one exceptional monster from a group and rolling a d8 for its Initiative instead of d6. Can see where this might occasionally be useful, but doesnt apply to this situation so...

Oh, thats it. Thats the Initiative rules.

Or, thats your giant strawman up in flames, I should say.

Yes, exactly.  Anyone who brings up the ADDICT document without providing any context (i.e., the vast bulk of the document is how to handle the corner cases) either didn't read it, couldn't understand it, or is deceptively insinuating that typical 1E combat requires 20 pages of rules.  

Yes, 1E has lots of sub-systems for specific situations that occur only rarely.  Your mind hurting is another person's flavor.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;850820This was, I'm fairly certain, the major reason for Gary's reversing himself from his earlier "make up some shit you think will be fun" attitude.  Once TSR Inc saw D&D tournaments as a major advertising source, it was necessary to serve that principle.

It also helps when moving from one gaming group to another. As the DMG says, "make your changes. But be aware that the more you change the harder it will be for some players used to less modded rules to ease into." which is just common sense.

And yeah. Its usually nice to sit down at a convention game and not have to relearn D&D because the host is running something so mutated it looks like Gurps. Small changes like "no level cap for demi-humans." or "No clerics." are things players can ease into relatively without pause. (unless they only play clerics...).

Quote from: TristramEvans;850431So, going through it step by step...

Lets say a PC party and a group of snorks meet, parlay quickly breaks down, and a fight begins...

1. Determine if anyone is surprised.
Nope, optional rule that doesnt apply. So we skip pages 1 and 2.

You didn't even manage to get through a single step before revealing that you weren't using the AD&D 1E rules.

(Surprise in AD&D 1E is not only a matter of being surprised by the appearance of a monster. It's also explicitly supposed to be checked to see whether or not someone was unprepared for an attack from a known source. See pg. 62 of the DMG.)

QuoteOr, thats your giant strawman up in flames, I should say.

The irony, of course, is that all you managed to do was offer yet another example of exactly what I said.

The best part were all the other people who conveniently hoist themselves by their own petard by nodding their heads in agreement with you, thus proving that they, too, weren't playing AD&D by the RAW. Just like I said.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851058You didn't even manage to get through a single step before revealing that you weren't using the AD&D 1E rules.

(Surprise in AD&D 1E is not only a matter of being surprised by the appearance of a monster. It's also explicitly supposed to be checked to see whether or not someone was unprepared for an attack from a known source. See pg. 62 of the DMG.)



The irony, of course, is that all you managed to do was offer yet another example of exactly what I said.

The best part were all the other people who conveniently hoist themselves by their own petard by nodding their heads in agreement with you, thus proving that they, too, weren't playing AD&D by the RAW. Just like I said.

Dude, point to where the AD&D Doll touched you.

What Jason claimed:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;850288Here's the 20 page summary of how initiative works in AD&D 1st Edition.

Wow it takes 20 pages just to summarize the initiative system in AD&D. Golly that sounds like it must be so hideously complicated that no one could ever use it. Let's see what the author, DMPrata, has to say about his summary:

QuoteNever quite understood the full intricacies of the 1E combat system? Advanced Dungeon & Dragons Initiative and Combat Table (ADDICT) summarises all you need to know to run your combats as they should be. Also includes a french translation.

Huh, so that isn't just a summary of the initiative system, "all you need to know to run your combats" describes a summary of all you need to know about the entire AD&D combat system. Why 20 pages to do that in two languages (English and French) doesn't seem too outrageous. Someone sure seems confused here or else disingenuous. :confused: But who? :idunno:

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851058You didn't even manage to get through a single step before revealing that you weren't using the AD&D 1E rules.

(Surprise in AD&D 1E is not only a matter of being surprised by the appearance of a monster.)

Which didnt apply to the combat in question.

You're trying very hard, but you're strawman remains a strawman.

Quote from: Phillip;850740HUH??? Roll for attack has the effect of determining whether any roll for damage is applicable in the first place (and, in combination with a parry roll, and/or perhaps a fumble or critical or impale result, applicable to what).

Yep,between 5 and 10 sets of shaking 1D100, followed by between 5 and 10 sets of shaking for the damage ...

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851058thus proving that they, too, weren't playing AD&D by the RAW. Just like I said.

I don't think I've ever actually played AD&D in a group that was BtB, RAW. Your statement was this (at least I think this is what you're referring to):

QuoteBasically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Many people believe they are. Virtually all of them are deceiving themselves.

That's an absurd statement to make. Of COURSE we're playing AD&D. We're definitely NOT using every single sub-system the game offers because half of them are optional and the other half are specific to certain cases.

If your claim is that to actually play AD&D you have to use every single rule in the book, every single time, I'll make a similar claim that no one has ever played any RPG. No one ever plays Monopoly because I've never seen anyone actually apply the mortgage rules. No one plays SFB because sometimes you capitulate before the guy can roll on the DAC after he hit you with four overloaded photons.

There's much more to playing a game, any game, than 100% adherence to what's in the books.

Quote from: Brad;851096There's much more to playing a game, any game, than 100% adherence to what's in the books.

If millions of screaming retards actually realized this, then there would be much less message board traffic.

The hilarious thing about this 30+ page thread is it seems nobody actually read the OP. The people the OP cited didn't say they were embarrassed to play AD&D anymore (that was editorializing on the part of the OP). They just said the couldn't play it. They had moved on to different games. Is that really so offensive? I can't play Risk. I have other boardgames I'll always want to play instead. Doesn't mean I'm embarrassed by Risk, or that Risk has anything to apologize for.

This is why grognards have a reputation for having remarkably thin skin.

Quote from: Brad;851096That's an absurd statement to make. Of COURSE we're playing AD&D. We're definitely NOT using every single sub-system the game offers because half of them are optional and the other half are specific to certain cases.

If your claim is that to actually play AD&D you have to use every single rule in the book, every single time, I'll make a similar claim that no one has ever played any RPG.

  Justin's argument, as I understand it, is that while most RPGs give you implicit or explicit permission to alter or ignore rules, AD&D 1st Edition strongly exhorts, if not outright commands, that the rules be used as a complete, coherent and unmodified whole.

  I'm not familiar enough with the textual details of AD&D to know whether this is accurate. However, what rules beyond the bard and psionic appendices are called out as optional?

  (And this argument really should be qualified as applying to 1st Edition. 2nd Edition has a radically different ethos.)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851160(And this argument really should be qualified as applying to 1st Edition. 2nd Edition has a radically different ethos.)

In what way? (I'm entirely unfamiliar with 2E.)

Quote from: Bren;851163In what way? (I'm entirely unfamiliar with 2E.)

"By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player's Handbook. You've probably noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You've got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs. Curiosity and the desire to make changes, to do things differently because your idea is better than the other guy's--these are the most important things a Dungeon Master needs. As you go through this rule book, I encourage you to continue to make these choices.

"Choice is what the AD&D 2nd Edition game is all about. We've tried to offer you what we think are the best choices for your AD&D campaign, but each of us has diferent likes and dislikes. The game that I enjoy may be quite different from your own campaign. But it is not for me to say what is right or wrong for your game. True, I and everyone working on the 2nd Edition have had to make fundamental decisions, but we've tried to avoid being dogmatic and inflexible. The AD&D game is yours, it's mine, it's every player's game.

"So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. ...

"Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer woorrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP!" -- Zeb Cook, Foreword to the AD&D 2nd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, 2/9/1989

  Note that when I say 'radically different ethos', it would be more accurate to say 'from that assumed by Justin's argument'. I'm not intimately familiar with the text of 1st Edition, although what I have read suggests that one could find sentiments both paralleling and opposing these both in the core books and in Gygax's external comments.

Quote from: Bren;851163In what way? (I'm entirely unfamiliar with 2E.)

Probably half of the content in the 2E PHB and DMG are labled as optional rules, and all of the non-core books are.

2E wanted to be all things to all people, to the maximum extent that the AD&D framework could be stretched and still be recognizable.

Thanks for the explanations on 2E. That sounds more like the tone in the original rules.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851160Justin's argument, as I understand it, is that while most RPGs give you implicit or explicit permission to alter or ignore rules, AD&D 1st Edition strongly exhorts, if not outright commands, that the rules be used as a complete, coherent and unmodified whole.

  I'm not familiar enough with the textual details of AD&D to know whether this is accurate. However, what rules beyond the bard and psionic appendices are called out as optional?

  (And this argument really should be qualified as applying to 1st Edition. 2nd Edition has a radically different ethos.)

Huge chunks are clearly labeled as optional in 1st ed.  My DMG is right over there but frankly I'm too fucking lazy to look.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;851188Huge chunks are clearly labeled as optional in 1st ed.  My DMG is right over there but frankly I'm too fucking lazy to look.

It's like saying Oxygen is a metal.  It is so ridiculously, obviously false that actually lowering yourself to proving it wrong is beneath pond scum.  You have better things to do, like die in 30 years.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851160Justin's argument, as I understand it, is that while most RPGs give you implicit or explicit permission to alter or ignore rules, AD&D 1st Edition strongly exhorts, if not outright commands, that the rules be used as a complete, coherent and unmodified whole.

  I'm not familiar enough with the textual details of AD&D to know whether this is accurate. However, what rules beyond the bard and psionic appendices are called out as optional?

1: Justins argument is false. Hence why people are calling him out on it. As I quoted from the DMG. The statement was essentially "Change what you want. The rules are a guide. Not set in stone. Do not let the players try to rules layer you if it contradicts what you have set down. Think things through, be fair and consistent with your changes and you are playing AD&D as it was meant to be played."

2:
PHB: Falling damage is optional. Yes. The most bitched about element of D&D is optional. Poison (though more like heavily restricted.)
DMG: Rolling 3d6 in order. Secondary skills. Chance of contracting a disease. Racial Tendencies. Playing monsters. Gem magical properties. Weapon type adjustments. Non-human sages. Non-assassin spies. Choosing starting spells. And that is before page 40.

Quote from: CRKrueger;851199It's like saying Oxygen is a metal.  It is so ridiculously, obviously false that actually lowering yourself to proving it wrong is beneath pond scum.  You have better things to do, like die in 30 years.

Ive got my DMG handy. but Im not combing through the thing for every single example. Suffice to say. Yeah, hes wrong.

Quote from: Brad;851096I don't think I've ever actually played AD&D in a group that was BtB, RAW. Your statement was this (at least I think this is what you're referring to):

QuoteBasically nobody actually plays AD&D.

Many people believe they are. Virtually all of them are deceiving themselves.

That's an absurd statement to make. Of COURSE we're playing AD&D. We're definitely NOT using every single sub-system the game offers because half of them are optional and the other half are specific to certain cases.

What on earth made you think that cutting the second half of my post from your quote, rephrasing it, and then claiming that your rephrasing of what I said proves that what I said was wrong was a good idea?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;851160Justin's argument, as I understand it, is that while most RPGs give you implicit or explicit permission to alter or ignore rules, AD&D 1st Edition strongly exhorts, if not outright commands, that the rules be used as a complete, coherent and unmodified whole.

Actually, no. What I was responding to was the claim that AD&D was a faster and lighter system than 3.x because you can ignore a bunch of rules in AD&D.

It's not that nobody should be allowed to ignore rules they don't like in AD&D. It's that comparing your massively house-ruled version of AD&D to RAW 3.x (or any other edition) and claiming that it is, in any way, a meaningful comparison of the two games is prima facie absurd.

Quote from: TristramEvans;851064

QuoteYou didn't even manage to get through a single step before revealing that you weren't using the AD&D 1E rules.

(Surprise in AD&D 1E is not only a matter of being surprised by the appearance of a monster.)

Which didnt apply to the combat in question.

You're trying very hard, but you're strawman remains a strawman.

First, you literally misquoted me. Shame on you.

Second, the situation you described explicitly fits the criteria under which the AD&D rules require a surprise check. Like I said.

The deliberate misquoting of what I said makes me rather suspect you know this to be true.

Next time, you should probably just admit that you were wrong.

Justin just went full Frank Trollman.

Dude. You never go full Frank Trollman.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851229It's not that nobody should be allowed to ignore rules they don't like in AD&D. It's that comparing your massively house-ruled version of AD&D to RAW 3.x (or any other edition) and claiming that it is, in any way, a meaningful comparison of the two games is prima facie absurd.

I dunno, man. If "virtually everyone" is playing the "houseruled" version, why use RAW as the standard of comparison? Shouldn't we be comparing games as they are actually played, rather than the Platonic ideal of the letter of their rulesets?

Quote from: The Butcher;851231Shouldn't we be comparing games as they are actually played, rather than the Platonic ideal of the letter of their rulesets?

Since nobody plays the Platonic ideal of AD&D1e, yes. And for any drongos who want to claim to play AD&D1e by the book: please explain to us the initiative rules.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851229Actually, no. What I was responding to was the claim that AD&D was a faster and lighter system than 3.x because you can ignore a bunch of rules in AD&D.

It's not that nobody should be allowed to ignore rules they don't like in AD&D. It's that comparing your massively house-ruled version of AD&D to RAW 3.x (or any other edition) and claiming that it is, in any way, a meaningful comparison of the two games is prima facie absurd.

I stand corrected; my apologies for misconstruing your argument.  However, I think it is arguable that even 3.X as played wound up heavier than AD&D as played. I suspect this is because defined character abilities hooked on to parts of the 3.X rules that otherwise would have been handwaved as they were in AD&D. Of course, this is a hypothesis based on second-hand data.

Speaking strictly from my own experience - when I ran AD&D 1E back in 2014, I found that it was refreshingly easy to houserule, but that it was indeed a gigantic, incoherent mess. That's part of it's charm and it's drawbacks - it's very customizable, and maddeningly incoherent if you do indeed try to run it from the RAW (which we did for combat, using the ADDICT document.) It was way fun. There's no need to apologize for it, it was what it was for it's time and it got  alot of people excited for the hobby.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851229rephrasing it

That's a direct fucking quote. Now you're just being a dick.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;851239Since nobody plays the Platonic ideal of AD&D1e, yes. And for any drongos who want to claim to play AD&D1e by the book: please explain to us the initiative rules.

Each side rolls, adds any applicable modifiers.

Or do you mean the initiative play out in a round?

Even that is fairly straightforward. Its the special case rules that get quirky.

Actually, you don't add modifiers. The reaction/attacking adjustment for dexterity only applies to actual surprise segments. The D6 roll is never modified. We went over this in my home group, look it up.

That is what meant. If a side is surprised then it automatically fails initiative for example.

Also ranged fire DEX bonus effects initiative roll for themselves only. But it still is a factor in initiative. Page 64.

Quote from: Omega;851276That is what meant. If a side is surprised then it automatically fails initiative for example.

Also ranged fire DEX bonus effects initiative roll for themselves only. But it still is a factor in initiative. Page 64.

Hm. Must check that out. Weird, thanks.

We were finding nuggets like this all the time.

Also - Astonishing Swordsmen of Hyperborea has to be my favorite AD&D 1 inspired clone. It retains the spirit of AD&D 1, if that makes sense. I really want to play it one day.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851058You didn't even manage to get through a single step before revealing that you weren't using the AD&D 1E rules. ...

The best part were all the other people who conveniently hoist themselves by their own petard by nodding their heads in agreement with you, thus proving that they, too, weren't playing AD&D by the RAW. Just like I said.

Sorry, slyboots, what you actually said was: "Basically nobody actually plays AD&D."

This may be a news flash to you, but actually playing AD&D is not generally identical with Justin Alexander's definition of "by the RAW".

Mr. Gygax devoted ample space to making clear that the most important rules are meta-rules, the DM's power of adjudication being the source of all other rules (which are themselves merely contingent upon that).

The DM is the master of the game. By inherent nature, the game is a fundamentally different phenomenon from Chess or Contract Bridge.

Not that ADDICT is "the RAW" anyhow. From what I gather, the writer made up an interpretation of monk surprise that's a lot more complicated than the one I've used (which perfectly matches the actual specification).

Quote from: soltakss;851071Yep,between 5 and 10 sets of shaking 1D100, followed by between 5 and 10 sets of shaking for the damage ...

Definitely not a good one for folks who can't just get on with the toss. Some people seem to like the stately pace I've seen for instance in 4E D&D, but I find fast action more conducive to my enjoyment.

With RuneQuest, I like the details it adds to my visualization of events enough to make the chrome worthwhile. We could probably get a similar spread of outcomes with fewer steps, but the "feel of the process" adds to my enjoyment.

Except when I'm in the mood for something else, that is! Variety is the spice of the gaming life.

The "2E ethos" was to spell things out very clearly. So, some things are explicitly optional. The flip side, of course, is that other things can thus be considered mandatory (and may be explicitly so as "tournament rules").

2E encouraged tremendous variation -- through purchasing TSR's ever-growing canon of Official AD&D expansion books.

2E made it easier for some people to think, "Ah, I could do things this way or that way; different tools are suited to different contexts." The texts raised many considerations and possibilities in a way that was easier for many people to grasp. From vocabulary to layout, the books were geared to a larger demographic.

Gygax's work had nuances, a quality lost -- perhaps increasingly so -- on a large segment of the public.

The big difference between AD&D and 3E is perhaps clearest to those of us who came to AD&D by way of the OD&D works of which it was a compilation and revision. Despite claims and good intentions, in practice the AD&D books did not really overcome the assumptions of prior experience with the D&D game.

Pieces had accreted gradually and piecemeal on top of the very simple original structure. They didn't necessarily even work very well together, though one aim of AD&D was to smooth those rough edges. Anyhow, there was never a "MUST" in there, only "IF" you use variant x then variant y is also recommended.

With 3E, there really was a strongly coupled system (whether well or poorly designed). Things depended on other things in a complex web, with a "game balance" ethos that made messing with the web an imposing prospect. If things were actually thrown up in isolation, that wasn't the impression fostered. There was no clear, simple core beneath the chrome.

I'd have to side with Philip here - I feel that part of the OSR backlash was in the influence of the Magic: The Gathering ethos of resource based gameplay that had creeped into 3rd Edition (and that had existed as part of the magic system since AD&D 1E's Vancian magic system.) This resource based system that is part of OD&D's wargaming roots becomes more and more pronounced as one engages in higher and higher level play in any D&D variant. Note how most OSR variants emphasize low magic, low level play - this is a sidelong attempt to avoid engaging with the resource management aspect of the OD&D Vancian magic system, which 3.x fully develops. The magic system really didn't change all that much between 1st and 3rd (still 9 levels, still scaling effects, etc.) and the system becomes more and more brittle and it becomes harder and harder to make the rulings "on the fly" that the OSR favors. This is why so much of the OSR favors the hard core, low level, high character death style play that directly avoids the resource management magic mini game of higher level D&D. The most honest versions of OSR games that take this issue head on are versions which simply deflate caster power (such as stopping caster advancement at 6th level spells).


The whole notion of "simplicity" of AD&D 1 is a myth - AD&D 1 at high levels is full of options and is every inch as complex a game, as full of options, as any 3.5 game, even without Unearthed Arcana. I know, because when I was 17 I gamed Queen of the Demonweb Pits at 17th level with my Magic-User, Greystroke. The way I had to play him wasn't substantially different from a 3.5 Wizard.

The reason that DMs can tinker in OSR games isn't because of flexibility of design, it's because most OSR games take place at such a low level that making on-the-fly rulings won't blow apart the game structure. The Jenga tower isn't that high. This isn't an indictment of the OSR style, but of the nature of the AD&D design. E6 functions as well as any OSR variant in this regard as an answer to this issue and can be run as a fine OSR style game. The D20 simplicity actually functions well at this low level-the problems with D20 complexity that are stated above also happen with AD&D at equivalent levels.

To be fair to those who claim that there are some contradictory writings by Gygax in the 1E books regarding houseruling: there are.

As Phillip points out, a context of the times is very helpful.  Gygax didn't always write well for posterity.

Gygax wanted to do tournament games, as has been mentioned.  So there was (possibly) a clear difference between tournament mode and the game at your table.  If you wanted to have a game at your table that was in close to full compliance with tournament AD&D, then you couldn't houserule very much.  AD&D was going to be defined by tournament mode; it was expected that most players would be tournament players; and an expected universal familiarity with tournament AD&D would result in campaigns that varied from it not being accepted as "AD&D" by the tournament-participating player base.  It was important to Gygax that a player should know the basic structure of what a campaign calling itself an "AD&D" campaign would look like.  It was important to the goal of a tournament structure to avoid players showing up to their first tournament and finding out that their normal tactics were not possible according to tournament standards - that would result in poor tournament participation long-term.

But.

If your campaign being in line with tournament standard is unimportant to you, then go for it!  Houserule to your hearts content.  And if some player tries to give you shit for not running a tournament (read: AD&D) game, tell him to go pound sand because TSR choosing to run tournaments doesn't trump each DM as absolute arbiter at their own dining table.  Just don't be surprised if players say your game isn't really "AD&D".

Of course, all of this fell by the wayside pretty quickly since tournament gaming didn't pan out as envisioned, since various factions of TSR began to hold up character assumption and heavy role-play as more important than more objective things like measuring progress against time spent, or treasure gained.  And so passages of text that tried to differentiate the boundary lines of where TSR asserted control over the game, versus where TSR left control in the hands of the DM became even harder to grok.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;851285Also - Astonishing Swordsmen of Hyperborea has to be my favorite AD&D 1 inspired clone. It retains the spirit of AD&D 1, if that makes sense. I really want to play it one day.

It makes all the sense in the world. I love this game to bits.

I think a big part of what makes AD&D unappealing to the generation of gamers who came in after 3e is that the scale of play is almost totally different.  Battles are fought at a more removed, strategic scale; PCs will frequently have a bunch of redshirt hirelings to throw away and likewise the usual monster foot troops (orcs, hobgoblins etc.) come in greater numbers; combat in of itself carries no reward and players are encouraged to avoid it where possible.  The Dungeoncrawl itself really feels much more like a "campaign" where players are encouraged to take a longer view, flee or avoid individual fights and think laterally with the ultimate goal being Get To the Treasure At the Bottom.  

3e was all about the fancy new combat system, whereas AD&D was more about getting to the results and left most of the details of a fight to the imagination.  3.x is the edition where you can feel the difference between Greatsword Guy and Rapier Guy because it's built into the rules.  The game almost completely lost the grander strategy elements (with all its associated bookkeeping) and became more about tactics---using elevation, flanking, grappling or defensive fighting all became important aspects of the game.  This was great and let players feel like proper Action Heroes, but it also created a mentality of "if it isn't in the rules/if there isn't a feat for it, it doesn't exist!"  and made combat into a long slog unless everyone at the table was well read and prepared ("he'd be a great warrior if he only knew his math a little better!")  When getting into a fight with a squad of Hobgoblins eats up the entire session other aspects of the game necessarily get truncated.  Shopping, castle-building, hiring NPCs all sort of became vestigial at best in 3.x, and when newer players read the AD&D Player's Handbook or (especially) the DMG they can understandably come away with the impression players aren't allowed to do much of anything because so much is left uncovered by the rules, and what is covered is stuff like "how many people might settle your new Barony after you build a stronghold" which 3e players are trained to think of as unimportant stuff to be handwaved----your character is an Action Hero who stabs people in the face in order to get better at stabbing people in the face (or learn more spells or w/e) and their personal progression matters more than decorating their house.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851389I think a big part of what makes AD&D unappealing to the generation of gamers who came in after 3e is that the scale of play is almost totally different.

The different "scale of play" and the focus on combat and being an action hero are also the reasons why many of us who started with early TSR editions have little interest in WOTC editions. While the name on the game is the same, the actual games are very different in focus once you get into the meat of things.  If you liked the focus of 1970s and 1980s TSR versions you may not like the focus of WOTC versions and vice-versa.

5e tries somewhat to compromise between to the two focuses, but it is still too action hero focused for me. Combat still takes too long if you prefer the battles of 0e, B/X and streamlined 1e where you could have 5 or 6 PCs and their henchmen take on 20 or 30 orcs and have the entire battle done in 10 or 15 minutes.

Personally my ideal game of Dungeons & Dragons would have all the cool castlebuilding, wilderness-exploring aspects of late-game AD&D but two modes of combat---a broader 'squad-based' mode for when you're clearing a bunch of Hobgoblins out of a cave, and a 'cinematic mode' for when you are fighting an enemy champion or you're attacked in a bar while out of your armor and you want rules for when the Ogre tries to crush Aragorn or you throw beer in a guy's face or whatever.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851394Personally my ideal game of Dungeons & Dragons would have all the cool castlebuilding, wilderness-exploring aspects of late-game AD&D but two modes of combat---a broader 'squad-based' mode for when you're clearing a bunch of Hobgoblins out of a cave, and a 'cinematic mode' for when you are fighting an enemy champion or you're attacked in a bar while out of your armor and you want rules for when the Ogre tries to crush Aragorn or you throw beer in a guy's face or whatever.

OD&D.

Free Kriegspiel.

The referee's judgement is the only rule.  All else is supplementary material to help the referee.

The ogre tries to crush Aragorn?  I adjudicate it.
You try to throw beer in a guy's face?  I adjudicate it.

If I can't, I shouldn't referee.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851394Personally my ideal game of Dungeons & Dragons would have all the cool castlebuilding, wilderness-exploring aspects of late-game AD&D but two modes of combat---a broader 'squad-based' mode for when you're clearing a bunch of Hobgoblins out of a cave, and a 'cinematic mode' for when you are fighting an enemy champion or you're attacked in a bar while out of your armor and you want rules for when the Ogre tries to crush Aragorn or you throw beer in a guy's face or whatever.

O/AD&D allready did that. Chainmail and later Battlesystem (and BECMI's War Machine) and later yet Birthright though made the large wargame-esque side a bit easier to manage. That sort of versatility few other games had.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;851400OD&D.

Free Kriegspiel.

The referee's judgement is the only rule.  All else is supplementary material to help the referee.

The ogre tries to crush Aragorn?  I adjudicate it.
You try to throw beer in a guy's face?  I adjudicate it.

If I can't, I shouldn't referee.

Kriegspiel...?

Kriegspiel.  An 18th and 19th century wargame.

In the late 19th century as rules got lengthier and more cumbersome, "Free Kriegspiel" was devised.  This is a game where the referee's experience and judgement are the rules.  There might be some written text to help the referee, but there was no implicit authority in any text.  All authority came strictly from the referee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_%28wargame%29#.22Free.22_Kriegsspiel

Quote from: Justin Alexander;851229First, you literally misquoted me. Shame on you.

Of course I didn't. I literally pressed the "reply" button and the forum program literally copied your words.

QuoteSecond, the situation you described explicitly fits the criteria under which the AD&D rules require a surprise check. Like I said.

You are wrong.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ef/1c/d5/ef1cd5a569f3a318cf4e7fc135808a98.jpg)

Quote from: Harime Nui;851406Kriegspiel...?

Literally means "wargame". Originally assumed between two opponents and hosting a bevy of very complex rules, "Free Kriegspiel" was the idea to add in a referee or adjucator, who could make judgements on a case by case basis, surpassing the capacity of any rules system to account for specific contexts and unique situations that arose in the game, and considered to allow a far more accurate approximation of reality within the context of the game (and also allowed systems to be much looser since they werent overextending themselves trying to account for things qith a heaping of baroque rules that any GM with common sense could decide on instantaneously). This was the origin of the role of "gamemaster" which was carried over into D&D, itself based on Dave Arneson's game of Free Kriegspiel.

As time went on, RPGs have actually been taking a step backwards towards trying to come up with game systems to account for everything rather than making use of the powerful tool of having a GM. This usually originates from game designers who had bad experiences with bad GMs that touched them badly.

Part of the OSR was reclaiming this often unspecified but assumed aspect of early RPGs which were originally aimed at a wargame playing audience who would understand without explanation the function and purpose of a GM (and what makes a good one). This is often simply expressed by the mantra "rulings not rules".

This mantra pisses a lot of people off.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

Thanks, glad to be here!

I want to stick up for crunchier rules systems, but I don't basically disagree.  The ability to make a ruling that doesn't suck will always come before rules knowledge, in actual play.   That said one of the great things about a more detailed combat system like 3e has is it tells you what's possible to start with.  This might sound silly but like I said, a lot of people read the AD&D combat rules and they think you can't shove someone out of their square because there isn't a rule that says "to shove someone out of their square do XYZ" (maybe there is, I haven't read the AD&D book in a while, but you get my meaning).  It's good that 3.x has rules for jumping over an obstacle and attacking someone from above, or whatever, because it tells players (and DMs) that that's totally the kind of thing that can/will happen in this game.  So if the DM doesn't like swashbuckling antics because he's fat and doesn't know what athletic people can actually do or w/e you are much more allowed to give him sass for not letting you chandelier-swing than in a game where he's like the on-set scriptwriter.  

The other thing is the more of this stuff you put in there the more surprises there are, and surprises are cool and good.  A game with injury tables is a game where your Fighting Man can lose his hand, and then instead of dumping him you have an iron cap with a big-ass pata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pata_%28sword%29) attached set on the stump and have him return to the Dungeon harder and stronger and that's totally a thing that happened because of the dice, not because I wanted to be an asshole or we decided together it would be a cool thing to happen to your guy.  Of course that doesn't work if you decide having one hand doesn't mesh with the image of the Fighting Man you had in your head and now the character is ruined.... which is an attitude sadly encouraged by more recent editions but that is definitely a separate issue from how much crunch you like in your blow-by-blow.

Ah, to be clear, its not necessarily a matter of crunchy vs lite rules, which is more of a preference thing. There are some games that try to actively restrict the role of the GM, which is what I was referring to, but thats well played out internet drama around here.

I'm just as good playing a crunchy wargame as a freeplay game of Risus, myself.

Quote from: Ulairi;845308So, I was watching a review of D&D 5E on YouTube and the host did this thing about how he got started through AD&D and then played 2E in college, yadda yadda, and mentioned that he cannot play those games anymore. He really liked 5E (which I do, too). Then, yesterday on G+, I was reading a post and had the same thing about how AD&D was great and helped them get hooked into the hobby but he could never play it anymore. This made me realize that I hear from a lot of people (online) sort of the same thing. It makes me feel like an odd duck because I still really like AD&D. I got started on 2E but what my friends and I play is AD&D. When I go to Nexus Milwaukee or Gary Con, I play AD&D. I go to Half Priced books regularly looking for product. Why do so many people seem to dislike AD&D now?

Saying that you can't play AD&D any more is not an apology.

Are you asking why people don't like AD&D any more?

The difference in Free Kriegspiel is that the rulings ARE the rules; there is no authority vested in text, only in the referee's judgement.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851419a lot of people read the AD&D combat rules and they think you can't shove someone out of their square because there isn't a rule that says "to shove someone out of their square do XYZ" (maybe there is, I haven't read the AD&D book in a while, but you get my meaning).

This is exactly why the players should never read the AD&D combat rules. Or any combat rules, really. Every single time when I play with newbies, they ALWAYS come up with all sorts of shit "not in the rules". Every time. This tells me not showing them the combat rules and just coming up with rulings is the way to go.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851389I think a big part of what makes AD&D unappealing to the generation of gamers who came in after 3e is that the scale of play is almost totally different.  Battles are fought at a more removed, strategic scale; PCs will frequently have a bunch of redshirt hirelings to throw away and likewise the usual monster foot troops (orcs, hobgoblins etc.) come in greater numbers; combat in of itself carries no reward and players are encouraged to avoid it where possible.  The Dungeoncrawl itself really feels much more like a "campaign" where players are encouraged to take a longer view, flee or avoid individual fights and think laterally with the ultimate goal being Get To the Treasure At the Bottom.  

3e was all about the fancy new combat system, whereas AD&D was more about getting to the results and left most of the details of a fight to the imagination.  3.x is the edition where you can feel the difference between Greatsword Guy and Rapier Guy because it's built into the rules.  The game almost completely lost the grander strategy elements (with all its associated bookkeeping) and became more about tactics---using elevation, flanking, grappling or defensive fighting all became important aspects of the game.  This was great and let players feel like proper Action Heroes, but it also created a mentality of "if it isn't in the rules/if there isn't a feat for it, it doesn't exist!"  and made combat into a long slog unless everyone at the table was well read and prepared ("he'd be a great warrior if he only knew his math a little better!")  When getting into a fight with a squad of Hobgoblins eats up the entire session other aspects of the game necessarily get truncated.  Shopping, castle-building, hiring NPCs all sort of became vestigial at best in 3.x, and when newer players read the AD&D Player's Handbook or (especially) the DMG they can understandably come away with the impression players aren't allowed to do much of anything because so much is left uncovered by the rules, and what is covered is stuff like "how many people might settle your new Barony after you build a stronghold" which 3e players are trained to think of as unimportant stuff to be handwaved----your character is an Action Hero who stabs people in the face in order to get better at stabbing people in the face (or learn more spells or w/e) and their personal progression matters more than decorating their house.

now what i find interesting is that my group bent and made up a lot of rules
for stuff that wasn't in there but we felt made sense

Quote from: Harime Nui;851419Thanks, glad to be here!

I want to stick up for crunchier rules systems, but I don't basically disagree.  The ability to make a ruling that doesn't suck will always come before rules knowledge, in actual play.   That said one of the great things about a more detailed combat system like 3e has is it tells you what's possible to start with.  This might sound silly but like I said, a lot of people read the AD&D combat rules and they think you can't shove someone out of their square because there isn't a rule that says "to shove someone out of their square do XYZ" (maybe there is, I haven't read the AD&D book in a while, but you get my meaning).  It's good that 3.x has rules for jumping over an obstacle and attacking someone from above, or whatever, because it tells players (and DMs) that that's totally the kind of thing that can/will happen in this game.  So if the DM doesn't like swashbuckling antics because he's fat and doesn't know what athletic people can actually do or w/e you are much more allowed to give him sass for not letting you chandelier-swing than in a game where he's like the on-set scriptwriter.  

The other thing is the more of this stuff you put in there the more surprises there are, and surprises are cool and good.  A game with injury tables is a game where your Fighting Man can lose his hand, and then instead of dumping him you have an iron cap with a big-ass pata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pata_%28sword%29) attached set on the stump and have him return to the Dungeon harder and stronger and that's totally a thing that happened because of the dice, not because I wanted to be an asshole or we decided together it would be a cool thing to happen to your guy.  Of course that doesn't work if you decide having one hand doesn't mesh with the image of the Fighting Man you had in your head and now the character is ruined.... which is an attitude sadly encouraged by more recent editions but that is definitely a separate issue from how much crunch you like in your blow-by-blow.

welcome im the guy who has pour spelling and punctuation
on another note im also a fan of heavier systems being introduced to the hobby through 3.5 i tend to lean that way but not always

Quote from: TristramEvans;851421Ah, to be clear, its not necessarily a matter of crunchy vs lite rules, which is more of a preference thing. There are some games that try to actively restrict the role of the GM, which is what I was referring to, but thats well played out internet drama around here.

I'm just as good playing a crunchy wargame as a freeplay game of Risus, myself.

truth in all gaming right here

Yeah.  Restricting the DM is completely counterintuitive.  He's supposed to be the referee, not the opposition.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851828Yeah.  Restricting the DM is completely counterintuitive.  He's supposed to be the referee, not the opposition.

A little of both. Just not in the way some players seem to think, and not in the way some DMs act.

The DM is supposed to run vaugly fair encounters. IE: There is usually some way to deal with the encounter, be it combat, talking, or running away. And some risk for the players. The DM plays the enemy intelligently where applicable. Kobolds set traps and ambushes. Hobgoblins use sound battle tactics. The villain may have various contingencies. etc.

Its the DMs who throw the dragon at the 1st level characters. Or an assassin sniping the PCs with poisoned arrows from out of the blue and the like, with no outs for talking the thing down or running, that you end up with players who get the impression the DM is the enemy.

The monsters are out to kill you. Maybee. The DM is not. Hopefully.

Quote from: Omega;851845The monsters are out to kill you. Maybee. The DM is not. Hopefully.

Your character. They are out to kill your character. :p

Quote from: Bren;851869Your character. They are out to kill your character. :p

You've never stepped on a mini with a sword... :eek:

Quote from: Omega;851876You've never stepped on a mini with a sword... :eek:

I had not considered that...I sit corrected.

Quote from: Omega;851876You've never stepped on a mini with a sword... :eek:

I haven't either, but I've stepped on a d4. I wish the standard d4 was an octahedron labeled 1 to 4 twice. The tetrahedron is too stable to roll, too hard to read, and it's a fucking caltrop.

Quote from: Omega;851876You've never stepped on a mini with a sword... :eek:

Its how they hobble you, slow and weaken you until you stumble and fall then like they say in the nature shows "There can be but one conclusion..." :eek:

Quote from: Xúc xắc;852003I haven't either, but I've stepped on a d4. I wish the standard d4 was an octahedron labeled 1 to 4 twice. The tetrahedron is too stable to roll, too hard to read, and it's a fucking caltrop.

this is giving me flash backs to the time one of the players in my old group stepped on a d4.
actually it was more of jumped on it not seeing the bugger and well lets just say that with no shoes on we got him some ice.

I can only wonder how seriously Prata takes his 'ADDICT' follies. Citing a "convert to percentiles"  rule that makes sense only in somebody's house-rules variant published in a magazine 9 years after the DMG? If that's not a joke, I'm not sure what it is.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;851400OD&D.

Free Kriegspiel.

The referee's judgement is the only rule.  All else is supplementary material to help the referee.

The ogre tries to crush Aragorn?  I adjudicate it.
You try to throw beer in a guy's face?  I adjudicate it.

If I can't, I shouldn't referee.

Agreed! The notion that the purpose of the books is to be combed minutely by rules lawyers -- which seems to typify the attitude of a 3E/4E player culture that is more ultramontane than the designers of those games --is anachronistic in respect to the common understanding in the hobby in 1979, and plainly contrary to what Mr. Gygax states in the AD&D books.

Gary suggested that a player who cites the DMG should be charged a fee for "consulting sages" -- perhaps a magic  item or two -- with no guarantee that he'll succeed in browbeating the DM (who is to be "the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules").

Every RPG handbook I recall from that time stated what was taken for granted anyhow by people coming from the prior hobby-game culture. The algorithms presented are just a tool kit, and the GM is master of the tools --  not vice-versa, as the recently fashionable ethos has it.

"Free Kriegsspiel," as I understand it, was a response to the circumstance that abstractions that were not too unwieldy would yield incredible results when applied indiscriminately. A knowledgeable referee's common sense and experience could efficiently avoid those problems.

Detractors argued that it was too much to expect such competence to be readily available, especially when the subject was prospective major engagements between European powers (as opposed to colonial affairs of which there were increasingly plenty of veterans). They saw too much becoming dependent on the whims of referees, and thought it better to have experts compose more extensive sets of rules.

In any case, simulations can convincingly teach us things that are not true. The Imperial Japanese Navy for instance went to blatant lengths to rig things in favor of what the high command wished were so! This of course is not a big issue in unabashed fantasy games played solely for entertainment. Instead, the controversy surrounds preferences in the nature of play.

Quote from: Brad;851576This is exactly why the players should never read the AD&D combat rules. Or any combat rules, really. Every single time when I play with newbies, they ALWAYS come up with all sorts of shit "not in the rules". Every time. This tells me not showing them the combat rules and just coming up with rulings is the way to go.

The free mode brings in a dynamic that's different from board games. I like that, and while I also enjoy board games and computer games -- some of which I include in the category of "role playing" -- I don't see the point of reducing the more versatile human-moderated RPG to the technological limitations of those other forms.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851828Yeah.  Restricting the DM is completely counterintuitive.  He's supposed to be the referee, not the opposition.

That's my own preference as well, but I can see the appeal for some people in 4E D&D, in which a DM running a properly constructed combat scenario can (and probably ought to) "take off the gloves" and concentrate on trying to beat the players.

An odd thing is how much the 4E fan base seems (from what I've seen, anyhow) more inclined to a non-challenging, entitled tourist kind of entertainment. Even beyond that, there's a segment that's really more into collaborative story telling and seems impressed by how "rules light" 4E feels to them -- compared with 3E!

Is it all about "page 42" and ad hoc "skill challenges," or is it all about the kind of details you won't even find in GURPS? The question can get murky, I think.

Quote from: Phillip;852047Agreed! The notion that the purpose of the books is to be combed minutely by rules lawyers -- which seems to typify the attitude of a 3E/4E player culture that is more ultramontane than the designers of those games --is anachronistic in respect to the common understanding in the hobby in 1979, and plainly contrary to what Mr. Gygax states in the AD&D books

That comment is Gygax reinforcing the idea that the referee are the ultimate arbiters of the campaign.

However the purpose of AD&D compared to OD&D is to

QuoteDictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole. ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless.

By the time Gary Gygax was writing AD&D, TSR was besieged with hundreds of people asking various rules questions. The solution to was to create a version of D&D that was authoritative. AD&D is the result.

The section you were quoting from is found here.

QuoteIT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

While he starts off with a laudable sentiment of the spirit of the rules versus the letter of the rules. However reading the rest of the text it not same as the free kriegspiel attitude of OD&D. As long it was within the broad parameters of AD&D it was fine. And again his ultimate point to reinforce the idea you the referee was the ultimate authority.

The attitude AD&D was a marked change from the attitude of OD&D. OD&D was about using a loose framework to make shit up that was fun. AD&D was about using a toolkit to make up shit that was fun. If you had aerial combat in a AD&D campaign then Gygax wanted to you to use the rules in the DMG.

He tried to make something that was flexible so handle a lot of interesting fantasy adventures but ultimately AD&D was about standardizing rules.

What A.D.D.C.I.T shows that Gygax did not succeed in all areas. You mock the author for using footnote from Dragon magazine but if your intent was to thoroughly explain how AD&D combat was supposed to be run officially then it perfectly legit. And certainly within the spirit of AD&D as Gygax defined it at that time.

Now Gygax's attitudes on some of this stuff changed later. But when you read what Gygax, Kask, and the rest of the TSR were writing circa late 70s, your left with the impression that they were a bunch of guys bombarded with rules question, trying to deal with competitive tournaments, and unsympathetic to  types of campaigns that were not part of the upper midwest gaming scene.

This doesn't make AD&D "bad" nor does it make it "good" It just explains why it was the way it was. Why the snarky attitude in various product intros and the Dragon Magazine. Obviously it worked on some level because for most AD&D is THE edition of classic D&D and the most popular edition of D&D ever.

Quote from: Harime Nui;851828Yeah.  Restricting the DM is completely counterintuitive.  He's supposed to be the referee, not the opposition.

The point of AD&D was to restrict the referee. Understand Gygax's attitude on restrictions was not "there is only way to run a campaign" (although there was a little of that), but if you want to do X here are Y rules to handle it. He tried to make AD&D a flexible toolkit.

What he was firm about was that the referee is the final authority when it came to the campaign.

One goal of AD&D to stop the rain of questions that TSR was getting.

Quote from: estar;852063The section you were quoting from is found here.

No, actually. I referred to the Foreword, and the 1st page of the main text, in the DMG. However, the message is repeated through the PHB and DMG.  

The question is what the important "broad parameters" are. I assert that they are NOT (per Prata, Alexander, et al) to turn an example of DM rulings (from a page that clearly states only one 'rule,' unrelated to initiative) into arbitrary rules per se that must be applied all the time and every time.

To zoom in on such minutia is to miss the forest for the trees, which of course suits the often overlapping new schools of entitlement and rules-lawyer-ism to a tee. The smoke screen facilitates such murky maneuvers as simultaneously lambasting old D&D and claiming the prestige of the name.

As I stated earlier, the main message (from what I saw at the time) was that an express elevator to a 30th-level "Dungeons & Beavers" game could no longer plausibly be credited as the designer's intent. Gary owned up in the DMG to his failure to lay things out clearly in the OD&D booklets, having thereby created the impression in some minds that awesome treasures might simply be stumbled over and picked up for trifling effort and characters could be 20th level after a year (vs. no higher than 14th, by Gary's account, after 4 or 5 years of play in Greyhawk and Blackmoor) . He had addressed this in articles in TSR/TD, but now it was dealt with in the standard reference for Dungeon Masters.

 

QuoteIf you had aerial combat in a AD&D campaign then Gygax wanted to you to use the rules in the DMG.

I'm not aware of him ever saying so. It's not at the level that he gave the impression of actually giving a shit about.

HE apparently didn't use the baroque unarmed-combat systems in the DMG, until a few years later when he agreed (as if it were a revelation) with the conclusion of Roger Moore and others that they were a pain in the neck.

Psionics? He didn't even care enough to get the stats right.

Experience point calculations? The figures in the DMG don't add up BTB, because he just eyeballed whatever seemed right to him.

Initiative? He says in the PHB that the DM will CHOOSE when to apply dexterity, weapon speed, etc. He could have given an authoritative solution to the conundrum of what the correct rule is for spell-casting in melee, except that he apparently didn't care enough to HAVE a single 'correct' rule in the first place.

What weapons require two hands to wield? Use your common sense and knowledge of medieval arms, he said.

Morale and reaction? He says right in the DMG that a good DM should be able to dispense with what is perhaps the most detailed table of factors in the whole game.

QuoteWhat A.D.D.C.I.T shows that Gygax did not succeed in all areas. You mock the author for using footnote from Dragon magazine but if your intent was to thoroughly explain how AD&D combat was supposed to be run officially then it perfectly legit.

Huh?? How is an over-complicated house-rule system relevant? Did this article have any sort of official imprimatur? Mr. Gygax had long since departed from TSR and Dragon Publishing, so any such Official rubric could not come from the man who had actually written the AD&D books! You might as well quote Dave Hargrave in 1977 as Leigh L. Krehmeyer (first and last I've ever heard of her) in 1988.

More plausibly, you could quote a Gygax article from The Dragon or Unearthed Arcana as being Officially Approved AD&D material afterward, but it does not change the plain meaning of prior text.

QuoteAnd certainly within the spirit of AD&D as Gygax defined it at that time.

Double Huh?? You spin on a dime from claiming Gary was being all Ex Cathedra, to claiming that some lady's house rules are legit (if not, as per Prata, binding on everybody). Three impossible things before breakfast?

Don't lay on Gary the bullshit that some noobs made up for themselves when they were 10 years old or whatever. The things that you're liable to read in their Bible, it ain't necessarily so.

Those same kids years later were among those who whined about the guys at Wizards "breaking the rules," when the guys at Wizards were the only ones in a position to have said -- which they had not -- that they were indeed officially binding rules.

Break the circle and stop the movement, the wheel is thrown to the ground
Just remember it might start rolling and take you right back around

Quote from: Phillip;852076No, actually. I referred to the Foreword, and the 1st page of the main text, in the DMG. However, the message is repeated through the PHB and DMG.

Then cite the sources like I have rather than expecting us to rely on your authority that the text says X. I don't expect anybody reading what I assert to believe me unless i show them what I am talking about.

Quote from: Phillip;852076The question is what the important "broad parameters" are. I assert that they are NOT (per Prata, Alexander, et al) to turn an example of DM rulings (from a page that clearly states only one 'rule,' unrelated to initiative) into arbitrary rules per se that must be applied all the time and every time.

My point is that Gygax of the late 1970s intended for the rules of AD&D to be played by the book. Something I have demonstrated by the quote from Gygax's own writings. For example to refute what you are saying I quote from page 9 of the DMG.

QuoteAnd while there are no optionals for the major systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system.

Quote from: Phillip;852076To zoom in on such minutia is to miss the forest for the trees,

My point in zooming on such minutia is that when Gygax penned those book that it was to address specific issues that TSR were facing over the D&D game. That Gygax solution to deal with that was to create a toolkit of hard and fast rules. He recognized, within limits, that there were many ways of running D&D campaigns. His goal was not to say "There is only one way of running a campaign. His goal was to say "If you do X you must use Y rules in order it to be an AD&D campaign."

This is further reinforced in the rash of "official" Gygax editorial in the Sorcerers Scroll column of Dragon magazine.

If you view the situation as "bad" or "good" that on you.

Quote from: Phillip;852076which of course suits the often overlapping new schools of entitlement and rules-lawyer-ism to a tee. The smoke screen facilitates such murky maneuvers as simultaneously lambasting old D&D and claiming the prestige of the name.

You are venting about something unrelated to debate over whether Gygax of the late 70s intended for the rules of AD&D to be run by the book.

On that issue you are claiming that that wasn't his intent yet offer no quotes or links to indicate otherwise expecting us to say "Yes Phillip you are right because that how you remember AD&D."

And that understandable because regardless of what we know know about the genesis of AD&D, back then 9 out of 10 thought Gygax's decrees about "official" AD&D was silly. What we liked about AD&D went beyond its official status. That it source of inspirations to thousands of campaigns and millions of players.

To me the fact that AD&D was designed in response to people bombarding TSR with question daily, trying to run fair D&D tournaments, to quash silly campaigns, and to make a few bucks along the way does nothing to diminish that.

It make the genius of AD&D all the more remarkable that was it able to transcend its genesis into the beloved game it became. The same way in that the badly written and badly organized OD&D transcended its origins.

I personally respect OD&D more than AD&D because I think that OD&D is the more solid design because it was born more out of actual play in Gary's Greyhawk campaign than designed. AD&D in contrast was more designed than something that was born out of actual play.

And I think my opinion has weight because if you look how people played back in the day and now, that the vast majority play with OD&D style combat, and ruling with AD&D stuff like classes, items, spells, and monsters.

Quote from: Phillip;852076As I stated earlier, the main message (from what I saw at the time) was that an express elevator to a 30th-level "Dungeons & Beavers" game could no longer plausibly be credited as the designer's intent. Gary owned up in the DMG to his failure to lay things out clearly in the OD&D booklets, having thereby created the impression in some minds that awesome treasures might simply be stumbled over and picked up for trifling effort and characters could be 20th level after a year (vs. no higher than 14th, by Gary's account, after 4 or 5 years of play in Greyhawk and Blackmoor) . He had addressed this in articles in TSR/TD, but now it was dealt with in the standard reference for Dungeon Masters.

That was main public reason we were given for AD&D back in the day. Now we know more of how AD&D was created and the circumstances that TSR was in. Unless of course you are saying the scholarship of Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor is bullshit. Or wait that Gygax and the other TSR associates didn't write all those response to questions about how it was like back in the day on Dragonsfoot and other forums.

Or course you could just build your own case in support your own interpretation of the events.
 
 

Quote from: Phillip;852076I'm not aware of him ever saying so. It's not at the level that he gave the impression of actually giving a shit about.

Gygax wrote around 3,500 words on Aerial combat from page 50 to 53 of the DMG, greatly expanded from the section in OD&D. While I don't think he wrote AD&D to showcase fantasy aerial combat. I don't think it was just an afterthought either. My take was that him, Kask, and TSR got more than a few question on OD&D's aerial combat and like many of the other section wrote up a fuller treatment of the subject as the official rules.

Quote from: Phillip;852076HE apparently didn't use the baroque unarmed-combat systems in the DMG, until a few years later when he agreed (as if it were a revelation) with the conclusion of Roger Moore and others that they were a pain in the neck.

Psionics? He didn't even care enough to get the stats right.

Experience point calculations? The figures in the DMG don't add up BTB, because he just eyeballed whatever seemed right to him.

Hence why I respect OD&D more as I know that the vast majority of the book was a result of actual play from his Greyhawk campaign. I read those antedotes as well. My conclusion is that they addressed some complaint, or area that causing a lot of questions and in those case Gygax tried to design an improvement or accepted a contribution that he felt at the time would definitely address the issue.

Anyway that my own personal opinion nothing to do with the issue whether Gygax intended to AD&D to be run 'by the book'.

QuoteInitiative? He says in the PHB that the DM will CHOOSE when to apply dexterity, weapon speed, etc.

I will be blunt, the PHB does not say that.

Instead it says on Page 105.

QuoteYou have already seen information regarding the damage each type of weapon does, how heavy each is, how long and how much space each needs, and each weapon’s relative speed factor. The same charts also give relative efficiency against armor types. Your referee will use these factors in determination of melee combats by relating them to his Attack Matrices

Quote from: Phillip;852076He could have given an authoritative solution to the conundrum of what the correct rule is for spell-casting in melee, except that he apparently didn't care enough to HAVE a single 'correct' rule in the first place.

I think he just flubbed the explanation. It happens. If you go through it there only two or three ambiguous rules I outline it in this post.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=851552&postcount=19

And note I don't follow precisely what DM Prata does in A.D.D.C.I.T. I stuck only what can be found in the first three books while DM Prata looks at the entirety of the AD&D line.

Quote from: Phillip;852076Morale and reaction? He says right in the DMG that a good DM should be able to dispense with what is perhaps the most detailed table of factors in the whole game.

Again that not what the book says.

Page 37 of the DMG

QuoteWhen all modifying factors have been checked, adjust the base loyalty and roll percentile dice as noted above. (If you are certain of your DM ability, most of these factors should be apparent without actually checking them out, simply by empathizing with the character or group in question, and having them act accordingly. Until you are absolutely certain, however, it is urged that you use these tables.)

Quote from: Phillip;852076Huh?? How is an over-complicated house-rule system relevant? Did this article have any sort of official imprimatur? Mr. Gygax had long since departed from TSR and Dragon Publishing, so any such Official rubric could not come from the man who had actually written the AD&D books! You might as well quote Dave Hargrave in 1977 as Leigh L. Krehmeyer (first and last I've ever heard of her) in 1988.

Damn you are really hung up on the that reference to a Dragon Magazine Article. That out of 214 fucking footnotes he makes reference to Kreshmeyer.
You know even what Kreshmeyer's article said? It simple

• convert everything to percentile
• find the nearest die type and chance.
• Roll that for surprise

It not so much a rule but a gamer pointing out that you can take all the weird ass chances of surprise convert them percentiles and figure it out from there.

Now does DM Pratas insert his own intrepetations. Yes he does there are several ambiguous situations in the AD&D combat rules. He attempts resolve it in a way that he feel it is consistent with the rest of the rules. So you are right in one sense that it is a house rule.

But you know what that still a bullshit argument against the utility of ADDICT. Because outside of those case he draws together actual rules with reference so you find them yourself and not just accept his say-so.

Are you going to tell me that weapon speed factor comes into play any other time than when initiative is tied?

Or that Gygax does not recommend handling the 10 segments of psionic combat before normal combat is dealt with?

So what are these house rules that ADDICT is so guilty of.

First Gygax doesn't provide any rules or advice on handling spell casting against a charging foe.

Second Gygax doesn't provide any rules or advice when it two spell casters are going against each other. Spell casting time and weapon speed factors matter when it weapons vs spell. But when it comes to spell vs spell ... nothing.

Quote from: Phillip;852076More plausibly, you could quote a Gygax article from The Dragon or Unearthed Arcana as being Officially Approved AD&D material afterward, but it does not change the plain meaning of prior text.

which ADDICT does for the majority of its text something that you conveniently are ignoring.

Quote from: Phillip;852076Don't lay on Gary the bullshit that some noobs made up for themselves when they were 10 years old or whatever. The things that you're liable to read in their Bible, it ain't necessarily so.

I don't have too, I read what the guy wrote, I read what people involved wrote back in the day, I read what people involved day. Unlike you I am not trying to rely on 30 year old memories of how I though it was. I double check back to the sources and make sure what I say is backed up by what was written.

Estar, if you RTFM then there's no need for someone to go through exhaustively and pull out snippets for your delectation. Then again, if you're determined to read it with a spin that casts Gary as a hectoring tyrant with a fetish for petty details of dice tossing, you can keep doing that regardless of what's there in black and white. It would not be the first  text that people taking it for Holy Writ managed to make dreadful because that's what they wanted.

QuoteGygax wrote around 3,500 words on Aerial combat from page 50 to 53 of the DMG, greatly expanded from the section in OD&D. While I don't think he wrote AD&D to showcase fantasy aerial combat. I don't think it was just an afterthought either. My take was that him, Kask, and TSR got more than a few question on OD&D's aerial combat and like many of the other section wrote up a fuller treatment of the subject as the official rules.

That's not at issue. What's at issue is your claim that Gary gave a flying fuck whether I used those rules slavishly in my AD&D campaign.

Quote from: Phillip;852112That's not at issue. What's at issue is your claim that Gary gave a flying fuck whether I used those rules slavishly in my AD&D campaign.

A claim you haven't refuted and in which I supported by quotes from the text of the AD&D books. And I gave the reasons why he cared at that time. And I agreed that later on his attitude was different.

Quote from: estar;852116A claim you haven't refuted and in which I supported by quotes from the text of the AD&D books. And I gave the reasons why he cared at that time. And I agreed that later on his attitude was different.

A claim you have not supported and (though it seems therefore superfluous) is refuted by what he did say. You arbitrarily ignore what does not suit your thesis, so the likelihood of you changing your mind is close enough to nil. There's no real debate here.

Estar, I'll help you out: There's an article in an issue of The Dragon (finding which one is an exercise I leave for you) in which Gary says something about 2nd, 3rd, Nth editions, supplements and such. I reckon that'll give you better ammunition than you've cobbled together so far.

On the weight of evidence, I still think you're wrong. But at least you could have a rickety peg leg on which to stand!

Quote from: Phillip;852110Estar, if you RTFM then there's no need for someone to go through exhaustively and pull out snippets for your delectation. Then again, if you're determined to read it with a spin that casts Gary as a hectoring tyrant with a fetish for petty details of dice tossing, you can keep doing that regardless of what's there in black and white. It would not be the first  text that people taking it for Holy Writ managed to make dreadful because that's what they wanted.

 My claim supported by what in black and white. Yours is not nor have you made any attempt to support your claim by the black and white text. And yes I read the fucking manual multiple times and played it multiple times.

I agree that Gary is not a hectoring tyrant. That not why he adopted the authorities tone he did in writing AD&D and in his Sorcerors Scroll. In case you some how missed it. In my opinion the reasons are in order of importance.

1) TSR was being bombarded by rules questions and requests for ruling. By bombarded it was to the point it was interfering with what they were trying to produce.

2) D&D competive tournaments were a big part of the hobby at the time. Every one had their own house rules. AD&D would help to fix that.

3) Gary and the TSR staff were very annoyed at certain types of campaigns that were being declared as being D&D. AD&D was designed to fix that.

I don't see how this cast Gygax as a hectoring tyrant as you put it. Designing AD&D with an authoritative tone is a reasonable attempt as solving these issues.

Furthermore I did not say or claim that people back in the day took the AD&D books as gospels. In fact I mentioned that people ignored and in fact ridiculed the  Sorcerors Scroll columns where he was critical. In fact it continued to be mocked as seen in the Knights of the Dinner Table with the Gary Jackson character.

In my neck of wood it was just chalked up to the guy being eccentric or if a person was less charitable Gary was being corporate greedy. Now thanks to what we know now there is a more reasonable explanation.

Quote from: Phillip;852118A claim you have not supported and (though it seems therefore superfluous) is refuted by what he did say. You arbitrarily ignore what does not suit your thesis, so the likelihood of you changing your mind is close enough to nil. There's no real debate here.

I  quoted from the man's book and writings. You haven't, back your shit up.

Quote from: Phillip;852119Estar, I'll help you out: There's an article in an issue of The Dragon (finding which one is an exercise I leave for you) in which Gary says something about 2nd, 3rd, Nth editions, supplements and such. I reckon that'll give you better ammunition than you've cobbled together so far.

On the weight of evidence, I still think you're wrong. But at least you could have a rickety peg leg on which to stand!

Do your own research if you want to refute my point.

Quote from: estar;852120My claim supported by what in black and white. Yours is not nor have you made any attempt to support your claim by the black and white text.

You're in an alternate universe, pal. More accurately, you just pretend the words don't exist when they're right in front of your face. Some basis for conversation, Mr. Brick Wall.

Quote1) TSR was being bombarded by rules questions and requests for ruling. By bombarded it was to the point it was interfering with what they were trying to produce.

Yep. And Sage Advice kept on being there to answer questions like, "One of my players wants to get pregnant. What should I do?" (You're a DM, not a doctor, Jim. Or do you mean wants a character to ...?)

Quote2) D&D competive tournaments were a big part of the hobby at the time. Every one had their own house rules. AD&D would help to fix that.

Yep. But I'm not freakin' Origins XXIII. I'm not an employee of TSR Hobbies. I'm running my campaign. The relevant statements are plain English, hardly High Purple Gygaxian, but every word seems to be FNORD to you.

Quote3) Gary and the TSR staff were very annoyed at certain types of campaigns that were being declared as being D&D. AD&D was designed to fix that.

As I have repeatedly described.

All of which has zipadeedoodah to do with the point of contention. You have done a great job of arguing that you're one incoherent dude!

Quote from: estar;852122Do your own research if you want to refute my point.

Oh, you're a Bizarro! Everything means just the opposite to you! Now I understand.

Have a rotten day, then.

The notion that Gary Gygax was so inarticulate that in 29 years he could never find a way to express clearly an algorithm that was clear in his own thought and dear to his heart is pretty astounding. But I guess that's the Yrag who co-founded RST on htraE, not our Earth-1 gentleman.

Quote from: kosmos1214;852039this is giving me flash backs to the time one of the players in my old group stepped on a d4.

What grognard DIDN'T, back in the day?

I sure did.

(grumbles)

And with that, I'll flee the thread as others have, to let Phillip and Estar argue how many glaive/guisarmes you can fit on the head of a pin, to their hearts' content.

Quote from: Phillip;852056That's my own preference as well, but I can see the appeal for some people in 4E D&D, in which a DM running a properly constructed combat scenario can (and probably ought to) "take off the gloves" and concentrate on trying to beat the players.

I'm not sure why 4e would be different in this regard compared to any other edition? If the DM is playing the monsters as they're described (dumb, smart, tactics-oriented, sneaky) then they're running combat correctly. Honestly, a Dragon in AD&D isn't going to try and gobble up PCs or the DM puts the breaks on when PCs come up to a crypt filled with wraiths? Sure the DM isn't trying to kill them, he's playing the part of the monster, who is.

Quote from: Phillip;852056An odd thing is how much the 4E fan base seems (from what I've seen, anyhow) more inclined to a non-challenging, entitled tourist kind of entertainment. Even beyond that, there's a segment that's really more into collaborative story telling and seems impressed by how "rules light" 4E feels to them -- compared with 3E!

I really don't know where you're drawing these conclusions from? If anything the game sort of prides itself on being very flexible in taking on a myriad of challenges that range all over the place compared to, say, 3e's CR system. Its entirety on the DMs shoulders if the players aren't challenged, like every other version of the game. Personally I find non-challenging encounters boring and a waste of time. If I'm getting out the dice it had better be worth it to take on the monsters in combat rather than just parlay or paying them off or scaring them away. But I guess when 4e gets a poor reputation for being Combat 24/7, its hard to see that it isn't the end-all, be-all.

Quote from: Phillip;852056It's
Is it all about "page 42" and ad hoc "skill challenges," or is it all about the kind of details you won't even find in GURPS? The question can get murky, I think.

I never played GURPS so I can't comment on the details (or lack there of?) to which you're speaking about but page 42 has its place. I've used it quite a few times in adjudication cases or when someone wants to do something cool or fun without some feat or power. Funny thing is the game totally wants that stuff to happen but people are lazy fuck-tards and either say "No, use what's on your sheet" or "No, there's no rule for that so I don't know how to fix it." Or don't want to do off the cuff stuff so don't bother.

If a player wants to tie a string on the end of his sword and swing it around I'll come up with something quick that does the job but is as fair as I think it needs to be. That's what being a DM is all about

It's more people apologize for having read AD&D 2e, if this thread is anything to go by.  Wow.

Batman: When it comes to combat, 4E seems to me especially comprehensive and "auto-mechanical" -- the system taking care of itself, so anybody can apply the rules -- compared with other D&D versions.

In addition, the 'encounter' design systems seem to provide (for folks who like the game) a good challenge if the DM gives full attention to deploying the monsters to best effect. That requires the game-mechanical acumen in the first place, and concentration in the second. Otherwise, four or five expert players won't get a real workout.

I am myself no expert, so can only defer to those who are if these views are naive.

Quote from: Phillip;852139Batman: When it comes to combat, 4E seems to me especially comprehensive and "auto-mechanical" -- the system taking care of itself, so anybody can apply the rules -- compared with other D&D versions.

In addition, the 'encounter' design systems seem to provide (for folks who like the game) a good challenge if the DM gives full attention to deploying the monsters to best effect. That requires the game-mechanical acumen in the first place, and concentration in the second. Otherwise, four or five expert players won't get a real workout.

I am myself no expert, so can only defer to those who are if these views are naive.

I can only go by my own experiences as a player and DM but a lot of folks put FAR too much emphasis "encounter" design and these things like set pieces. Really, they started in 3.5 as the majority of pre-made adventures were build in that vein. Monsters have roles to help DMs gauge the type of encounter they want the PCs to face but that's by no means a required aspect for the game to function, especially in sand-box style campaigns.

If the DM wants the encounter to be difficult, crank up the level of monsters. If a pre-made encounter falls to shit and is too easy, I add more HP or give him a boosting effect or make one of its powers recharge on a 4, 5, or 6 instead of none. Stuff like that.

As to the auto-mechanical combat, I'm not sure I understand? Do you mean that the majority of the time players apply just what's on their character sheet and don't use out of box thinking or rely on a DM ruling to continue on what they want to do? If that's the case, that's one reason for pg. 42 in the DMG. I attempt to paint as much information into the setting and surroundings as possible. The players know that their existence has an impact on their surroundings. For example a mage who flings their Scorching Burst at-will definitely will catch stuff on fire, so maybe stay away from fire-keyword spells if your looking for a scroll or want to keep some of those expensive drapes.

Quote from: estar;852063That comment is Gygax reinforcing the idea that the referee are the ultimate arbiters of the campaign.

By the time Gary Gygax was writing AD&D, TSR was besieged with hundreds of people asking various rules questions. The solution to was to create a version of D&D that was authoritative. AD&D is the result.

While he starts off with a laudable sentiment of the spirit of the rules versus the letter of the rules. However reading the rest of the text it not same as the free kriegspiel attitude of OD&D. As long it was within the broad parameters of AD&D it was fine. And again his ultimate point to reinforce the idea you the referee was the ultimate authority.

The attitude AD&D was a marked change from the attitude of OD&D. OD&D was about using a loose framework to make shit up that was fun. AD&D was about using a toolkit to make up shit that was fun. If you had aerial combat in a AD&D campaign then Gygax wanted to you to use the rules in the DMG.
He tried to make something that was flexible so handle a lot of interesting fantasy adventures but ultimately AD&D was about standardizing rules.

What A.D.D.C.I.T shows that Gygax did not succeed in all areas. You mock the author for using footnote from Dragon magazine but if your intent was to thoroughly explain how AD&D combat was supposed to be run officially then it perfectly legit. And certainly within the spirit of AD&D as Gygax defined it at that time.

Now Gygax's attitudes on some of this stuff changed later. But when you read what Gygax, Kask, and the rest of the TSR were writing circa late 70s, your left with the impression that they were a bunch of guys bombarded with rules question, trying to deal with competitive tournaments, and unsympathetic to  types of campaigns that were not part of the upper midwest gaming scene.

This doesn't make AD&D "bad" nor does it make it "good" It just explains why it was the way it was. Why the snarky attitude in various product intros and the Dragon Magazine. Obviously it worked on some level because for most AD&D is THE edition of classic D&D and the most popular edition of D&D ever.

1: It is Gygag telling the DM to not be pushed around by rules lawyers. Listen to the players, but know when to say "NO" when they go too far.

2: Wrong. The solution was to make a version of D&D that covered as many options as they could think one. None of which is authoritative unless you wanted some form of congruency between tables. Otherwise change as you please. Just be aware that your changes may not be the same changes as someone elses. It is authoritative only in telling you that it is not authoritative.

3: Read my rebuttal elsewhere in this thread. Dont let the players get out of hand. This is your rules, your world, your players. If you are fair and consistent with your changes then you are playing AD&D as it was meant to be.

4: Wrong again. The DM was free to make something else up for aerial combat if they so wanted, or anything else. The whole DMG is "Heres as much as we could think to cover if you have a question (so you hopefully arent sending us more questions letters) and if you dont want to use that rule, make something up." Its just as freeform as OD&D, it just has more covered in the book.

5: So you totally missed the point and went off on some weird ass crusade. Got it.

6: Wrong again. The impression is that they were caught off guard and then adapted to see that there were even more ways to go about playing. And embraced some of those. They never came across as rejecting any playstyle other than the disruptive playstyles that exist seemingly to ruin everyone elses fun.

7: When you are getting letters that look like they were sent off from an insane asylum, and letters asking how much EXP you get for inventing nukes and blowing up the planet. You might get a little snarky at that sort of weirdness. This on top of having to deal with the onset of the D&D witch hunts later.

Quote from: Phillip;852110Estar, if you RTFM then there's no need for someone to go through exhaustively and pull out snippets for your delectation. Then again, if you're determined to read it with a spin that casts Gary as a hectoring tyrant with a fetish for petty details of dice tossing, you can keep doing that regardless of what's there in black and white. It would not be the first  text that people taking it for Holy Writ managed to make dreadful because that's what they wanted.

Guess its Estar's turn to be off the damn meds this week.

IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Quote from: Harime Nui;852157IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Didnt they segregate all that over to a second book. More profit.

Be glad the CCG idea failed otherwise we'd all have to collect those classes and magic items and races.

My (admittedly fading) memory of p. 42 is that it doesn't call for much discretionary judgement itself, since the purpose is to map things in terms of mathematical abstraction (as opposed to modeling things that could be way out of the characters' league). Where there are choices, could one not toss for them?

You are right, though, that in my experience there was very little in the way of questions not clearly and quantitatively answered in the rules, even without resorting to that table.

It's not that there are no gaps, no cases left to the GM's improvisation, but rather the impression of fewer. The same holds for 3E vs. most other rules sets, and I think in a wider domain, but 4E combat seemed much easier to run "by the book".

Quote from: Omega;852158Didnt they segregate all that over to a second book. More profit.

Be glad the CCG idea failed otherwise we'd all have to collect those classes and magic items and races.

I joke.  I am disappointed that it was 4e of all things that brought back Assassin as a base class, whereas 5e makes it just a Rogue subtype

Quote from: Harime Nui;852157IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Yeah they didn't ditch them at all. They decided that the Half-Orc and Gnome weren't nearly as popular as things like Tieflings and Dragonborn, not only that but those races weren't always in the first PHB anyways so they went into the PHB2. As for monks, since they always sucked hard in D&D the designers wanted to give them more attention to make them right, hence delayed debut. Same as the Barbarian, wanted to make it more than "Rawr! I'm angry! *pummel pummel pummel*" drivel we've constantly had to endure....

Quote from: Harime Nui;852160I joke.  I am disappointed that it was 4e of all things that brought back Assassin as a base class, whereas 5e makes it just a Rogue subtype

Damn right, and Paladins will never be a subclass of Cavaliers in my campaign!

No Drow Cavaliers either, kids. And no elemental-summoning Deep Gnomes.

Quote from: Phillip;852159My (admittedly fading) memory of p. 42 is that it doesn't call for much discretionary judgement itself, since the purpose is to map things in terms of mathematical abstraction (as opposed to modeling things that could be way out of the characters' league). Where there are choices, could one not toss for them?

It was a tool to help DMs in their adjudications when it came to the math part. A DM would look at that, determine how much damage, roughly, it should do based on what the PC attempted and apply that. As always, circumstances can make that outcome do more or less damage or require a more difficult roll to pass, etc.

Quote from: Phillip;852056You are right, though, that in my experience there was very little in the way of questions not clearly and quantitatively answered in the rules, even without resorting to that table.

It's not that there are no gaps, no cases left to the GM's improvisation, but rather the impression of fewer. The same holds for 3E vs. most other rules sets, and I think in a wider domain, but 4E combat seemed much easier to run "by the book".

Coming from AD&D and 3.x perhaps my experience has taught me that the rules will never cover everything and to ask the DM to rule on a particular situation and to trust in that rule. In days of AD&D, though, I felt DMs were far more schrewd and vindictive than later years but that could easily be attributed to the age of players and the lack of maturity.

Quote from: Batman;852163Yeah they didn't ditch them at all. They decided that the Half-Orc and Gnome weren't nearly as popular as things like Tieflings and Dragonborn, not only that but those races weren't always in the first PHB anyways so they went into the PHB2. As for monks, since they always sucked hard in D&D the designers wanted to give them more attention to make them right, hence delayed debut. Same as the Barbarian, wanted to make it more than "Rawr! I'm angry! *pummel pummel pummel*" drivel we've constantly had to endure....

Dragonborn are patently ridiculous and only in the 5e PHB to save face...

Quote from: Harime Nui;852168Dragonborn are patently ridiculous and only in the 5e PHB to save face...

Eh, they've been in the game in one way or another: Dragon-Kin (3e, Monsters of Faerûn), Draconians in Dragonlance, Saurials from the Forgotten Realms, half-dragons from multiple editions, etc. Dragonborn are neither profoundly un-D&D or all that original to 4e or the game overall.

Quote from: Harime Nui;852168Dragonborn are patently ridiculous and only in the 5e PHB to save face...

The boobs on basically reptilian critters gave me a double take, but I'm not sure where the "patently ridiculous" line should be drawn in such a fundamentally silly game as D&D.

Quote from: Omega;852158Didnt they segregate all that over to a second book. More profit.

Be glad the CCG idea failed otherwise we'd all have to collect those classes and magic items and races.

Ironically, 3e was built with the idea of a Magic style CCG, in so much as the mistaken concept of 'traps', things that look good on the surface, but aren't really.  Like a lot of the non-scaling feats.  They LOOK good, but after a level or two you're supposed to realize that they don't actually stack to other feats.

...Of course, I could be misremembering that quote from Monte Cook...

Quote from: Phillip;852170The boobs on basically reptilian critters gave me a double take, but I'm not sure where the "patently ridiculous" line should be drawn in such a fundamentally silly game as D&D.

"If you can hide it under a cloak and scarf you're okay."

Quote from: Phillip;852170The boobs on basically reptilian critters gave me a double take, but I'm not sure where the "patently ridiculous" line should be drawn in such a fundamentally silly game as D&D.

Dragonborn were originally either human-dragon hybrids, or humans turned into dragon people. Werent the Dray in Dark Sun also descended from humans turned into dragon people?

So the whole "They cant have boobs" rally was silly in and of itself.

Quote from: Omega;852176Dragonborn were originally either human-dragon hybrids, or humans turned into dragon people. Werent the Dray in Dark Sun also descended from humans turned into dragon people?

So the whole "They cant have boobs" rally was silly in and of itself.

Agreed, and Dragons may look lizard-like but likely aren't.  Besides, if Dragonborn were lizard-like, they'd be Lizardmen.

Though werent the 4e ones and now the 5e Dragonborn descended from dragons with no human element?

Quote from: Omega;852179Though werent the 4e ones and now the 5e Dragonborn descended from dragons with no human element?

No, the 4e ones were part human, I remember that clearly.

I just thought of them as Saurigs with halitosis. Rather bland compared with Dragonewts, but what the hey.

Quote from: Omega;8521544: Wrong again. The DM was free to make something else up for aerial combat if they so wanted, or anything else. The whole DMG is "Heres as much as we could think to cover if you have a question (so you hopefully arent sending us more questions letters) and if you dont want to use that rule, make something up." Its just as freeform as OD&D, it just has more covered in the book.

I am highlighting this not because I am ignoring your other points but because this the heart of the debate. The  part where you and Phillip are unable to come up with a simple quote to support this view.

For better or worse the marketing (through Dragon Magazine) and the DMG itself it filled with stuff like this.

Page 9 of the DMG

QuoteAnd while there are no optionals for the major systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system. These are sections where only a few hints and suggestions are given, and the rest left to the DM.

Or this from Page 230

QuoteIT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

When laying out the purpose of AD&D in Dragon #26 This is what the guy wrote.

From Page 30

QuoteBecause D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules were incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game.

Then he goes on further

QuoteWhile D&D campaigns can be those which feature comic book spells, 43rd level balrogs as player characters, and include a plethora of trash from various and sundry sources, AD&D cannot be so composed. Either a DM runs an AD&D campaign, or else it is something else. This is clearly stated within the work, and it is a mandate which will be unchanging, even if AD&D undergoes change at some future date. While DMs are free to allow many unique features to become a part of their campaign—special magic items, new monsters, different spells, unusual settings—and while they can have free rein in devising the features and facts pertaining to the various planes which surround the Prime Material, it is understood they must adhere to the form of AD&D.

Hence my assertion that in the LATE 1970s, Gygax intent for AD&D was to make a toolkit for referee to run their campaign and that in order to be a AD&D campaign the pieces you use out of the books had to be the rules as written.

And yes I get that the intent was not to enable players to be rule lawyers somethign that he had contempt for.  I stated several times that Gygax's view was that the referee's was the final arbiter of his campaign.

I am also aware that in later years Gygax's view have changed.

And please do me the courtesy of supporting your assertions rather than use ad hominen attacks like "Estar is off his meds".

I am commenting on why AD&D was written the way it does. Why people are interested in reading and writing documents like ADDICT.

I am NOT commenting on that this how AD&D ought to be played. Nor saying that this was how AD&D was played in the day. My focus on the reasons why AD&D was written the way it was with a far more authoritative tone than OD&D. Why Gygax wrote stuff like he did in Dragon Magazine. Why some people today are interested in how AD&D is supposed to be run by the book.

* stations archers to cover all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852205* stations archers to cover all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

You might want this.

And you wonder why they call RPG people pedantic nerds...

I quit playing AD&D after they dropped the "A". 3.0 and 3.5 were not an improvement in my book.

I still play several versions of OD&D/BD&D and several OSR games. I would probably play AD&D if someone offered to run it.

Over all it is that my tastes in gaming have changed and evolved and AD&D and its successors no longer meet my needs and desires. I don't see this as a reason to appologize for them though.

The pontifications of Gygaz and other TSR staff back in the early 80s were viewed as excessive pomposity. He really was full of himself. I remember a statement that using house rules was "not playing D&D".

Quote from: Brad;852212And you wonder why they call RPG people pedantic nerds...

I dont. And you see this in the board games too. Sometimes worse. And that kids is an accomplishment.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852205* stations archers to cover all exits *
* sets thread on fire *

Its not going to shut him up you know. Best to nuke em from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Like an echo from a golden age, I reiterate the apex of this thread (unsurprisingly from the first page). May it mollify you all into decorum. :cool:

That and it talks about Labyrinth, which garners cool points and is always worth reposting. Dance magic, dance. :D

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;845410I loved the fuck out of AD&D 1st Ed back in the day. I played it with teens (My own age) and college kids and middle-age dudes (Older than me). Good times, good times. Being into 1st ed Ad&D in the eighties was like losing your virginity to Labyrinth-era Jennifer Connelly. Over and over and over again.

As much as I cherish D&DV and playing today, it's not any "Better" than it was in 1985. RULES DON'T MATTER... they're just the house you throw your party in. Dungeon Master  creativity, enthusiasm, and storytelling skills and player enthusiasm are more important than the rules every single day. I once  played in a 2nd Edition AD&D game ran in a  rotting low-income housing project and DM'ed by a meth-head that had more pure energy and fun and creativity and role-playing and drama than anything anybody ever did with FATE. Back in May I ran an D&DV "Free RPG Day" event for a local comic-book store and the players were all super-hyper and into it and I felt like I was riding the third rail of a subway train. The "rules" faded into soft background noise and almost became irrelevant.


RULES. DO. NOT. FUCKING . MATTER.

I'm drunk, forgive me if I'm rambling.

Quote from: Brad;852212And you wonder why they call RPG people pedantic nerds...

There's pedantry, then there's pettifoggery, then there's simple arbitrary narrow-mindedness.

I could point out the text Estar missed on p.105, but the problem is not that he's wrong on the dot; it's that he won't see the whole picture.

There's no reason to test the limits of fair use when he already has the text.

Why even quote the paragraph in which Gygax defines 'uniformity' with specifics, when the pseudo-pedantic know-nothing's argument boils down to ignoring the whole discourse through PHB 8 and DMG 9?

Here's something worth quoting, though:

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

Quote from: DavetheLost;852232The pontifications of Gygaz and other TSR staff back in the early 80s were viewed as excessive pomposity. He really was full of himself. I remember a statement that using house rules was "not playing D&D".

Exactly, the question was why was he writing like that? The uncharitable view is that Gygax was being pompous and like you said "full of himself".

After what have been coming out in the last decade. I don't think he full of himself or being pompous at all.  He was doing what he felt was necessary to get TSR out from under the flood of questions that they were being bombarded with along with making tournaments easier to run which was a major part of the promotion of D&D among the hobby at the time.

Whether what he did was the "best" way to handle the situation that open to debate and not the point of my observation.

Phillips and other claim that I am not looking at the big picture. I feel that I am. To me Phillip and other that are ignoring all the "pompous" statements that Gary makes in the PHB, DMG, and Dragon magazine.

Why is that? Well because "pompous" Gygax is powerful image in the hobby. One that still mocked to this day, for example the Gary Jackson character in Knights of the Dinner Table. And that image angers people who like AD&D, who know and liked Gary Gygax.

The traditional response is to sweep it under the rug and focus on his genius and good qualities. And make no mistake the guy was a genius.

I don't think we don't need to sweep it under the rug. I don't think the story is that Gary was so flush with success that that he acted without thinking pompous and arrogant.

In my view the story is that OD&D and its supplements were not as well-written or organized as they needed to be and that TSR was suffering for it. That AD&D was written in part to provide hard and fast rules for various areas of game that needed it and the rest of it was a flexible toolkit to make campaigns out of.

That this wound up with Gygax promoting"official AD&D" with a heavy hand which ultimately led to people mocking him for it because they thought he was full of it when in reality he was trying to fix a real problem.

That for me is the big picture

There is one postscript in that because of the heavy handed promotion of "official AD&D" there exist today an interest in how AD&D is supposed to work "by the book".

However the reality of the hobby since the earliest day is that people can and will kit bashwhatever the hell they want to make the campaign they want. My personal view that is a good thing. But I am not going to mock people who are interested in or want to run AD&D by the book. Whatever floats their boat. I personally use a mix of OD&D, Swords & Wizardry, and my own rules to run my classic D&D campaigns so I am in that crowd.

Quote from: Phillip;852409Here's something worth quoting, though:

"In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously."

So you are denying that multiple times before and after the release of AD&D along within the books themselves; that Gary Gygax stated that if you don't use the rules in the books you are not running an 'Official' AD&D campaign."

If you don't deny it, then what your explanation for why Gygax spent a lot of time hammering that point in the late 70s and early 80s.

Thanks, Estar, for another example of Bizarro World literacy.

Quote from: estar;852426Exactly, the question was why was he writing like that? The uncharitable view is that Gygax was being pompous and like you said "full of himself".

After what have been coming out in the last decade. I don't think he full of himself or being pompous at all.  He was doing what he felt was necessary to get TSR out from under the flood of questions that they were being bombarded with along with making tournaments easier to run which was a major part of the promotion of D&D among the hobby at the time.

Whether what he did was the "best" way to handle the situation that open to debate and not the point of my observation.

My observation was based on how our group reacted at the time. Not with the benefit of almost four decades of hindsight and the revelations that have come out in the last decade.

I don't deny that Gary and Dave were creative geniuses who undeniably changed the world, if only in a minor way.

I never met Gary, so I do not know what he was like in person. I don't really care much either. I enjoyed his game.

Quote from: Phillip;852432Thanks, Estar, for another example of Bizarro World literacy.

Thus avoiding the question I ask in favor of taking a shot at me.

Quote from: estar;852428So you are denying that multiple times before and after the release of AD&D along within the books themselves; that Gary Gygax stated that if you don't use the rules in the books you are not running an 'Official' AD&D campaign."

If you don't deny it, then what your explanation for why Gygax spent a lot of time hammering that point in the late 70s and early 80s.

Corporate Gary != DM Gary

Or do you not understand the differentiation?

Quote from: Brad;852445Corporate Gary != DM Gary

Or do you not understand the differentiation?

I understand the difference.

Let me ask this. How does corporate Gary vs DM Gary relate to writing AD&D and specifically the DMG? Why do you think there is a corporate Gary in the first place?

Secondarily where did I say that Gary Gygax personally thought everybody needed to use the AD&D rules as is'? I know he didn't use the AD&D rules by the book in his own campaign then or later. My points are related to the time period when AD&D was created and promoted.

What I am focused on is why he acted as Corporate Gary in writing, and promoting AD&D. I don't think the explanation that the simple that he had good reason for what happened.

What Gary or anyone else said in the magazines or at cons is utterly and absolutely irrelevant to the stance in the AD&D books. Probably half of the playerbase didnt get Dragon or attend cons. And those that did might have never seen the articles or heard any such statements from Gary you so pedantically blindly quote to serve your own ends.

But yes please. Go ahead and quote something to falsely prove your point ad nausium.

Back on topic. Why do people need to apologize for AD&D? Because chuckleheads like this exist.

Yeah yeah I know that wasnt the OPs topic. But this thread hasnt been on that topic for I dont know how long?

Why do people feel they need to apologize for playing AD&D? Some probably because of the age old "I hate it because someone told me to." Others because they feel, or someone told them they should "outgrow" the game. That is was for children or who knows what imaginary reasons people concoct.

Gosh, do I not want to get into this, but my first thought is: shouldn't Gary be held accountable for being Gary, whether he's in corporate garb or not? My second thought is: like all of us, Gary is allowed to change, or reinforce his views. We're all in a constant state of revision, aren't we?

I have no problem with Gary changing his views on things as time went on. The gaming hobby certainly hasn't been static since the "Man to Man" and "Fantasy Supplement" rules were added to Chainmail.

We (meaning the players I knew) may have thought Gary was being a pompous ass when he wrote certain statements, but that didn't stop us from playing the hell out of his game.

I don't play AD&D anymore, but I don't apologize for having played it back in the day, nor for having fond memories of playing. And I still proudly play RPGs. I am even teaching my kids to play a D&D based game.

Quote from: cranebump;852545Gosh, do I not want to get into this, but my first thought is: shouldn't Gary be held accountable for being Gary, whether he's in corporate garb or not? My second thought is: like all of us, Gary is allowed to change, or reinforce his views. We're all in a constant state of revision, aren't we?

Certainly, and I said as much.

When reading Hawk & Moor, Playing at the World, and the anecdotes on the forums. I got to wondering why Gary changed his tone from OD&D to AD&D. The stereotype of "corporate" Gary has been around a long time and the stereotype didn't hold up when you dug deeper. Yet he wrote what he wrote in the DMG and the Sorcerer's Scroll column before, during, and after writing AD&D.

When after reading everything put out so far, my impression that Gary Gygax and the rest of TSR had a similar situation to when a forum or blog suddenly gets a 100 or 1,000 time more traffic. What works for a loose community of dozens of people no longer works when thousands are involved. In D&D cased it mushroomed into hundreds of thousands and then millions later.

Overall I think Gary and his staff did the best they could and produced some brilliant work within AD&D. Unfortunately along with that came the stuff that produced the stereotype of corporate Gary. And from personal experience in running gaming organizations there are times when the best or prudent course make, the person in charge look like a dick to some. In AD&D case were the pronouncements that when you use the rules of the book you have to run them as written or you are not running a AD&D campaign.

After his run at TSR was done his public image changed to be more like the Gary who wrote OD&D since he no longer had to deal with the stuff he had to deal with at TSR.

The DM/OD&D Gary -> "Corporate"/AD&D Gary thing is basically tragic, to me.

I mean in AD&D & doing promos He was all, "do it this way or else". Back in OD&D He was basically The opposite, all "add whatever you want, do whatever you want with it, make it YOUR game!:)"

What happened!? :(

Quote from: The Ent;852621The DM/OD&D Gary -> "Corporate"/AD&D Gary thing is basically tragic, to me.

I mean in AD&D & doing promos He was all, "do it this way or else". Back in OD&D He was basically The opposite, all "add whatever you want, do whatever you want with it, make it YOUR game!:)"

What happened!? :(

A bunch of third party published made a ton of money, and TSR wanted to keep ahold of as much of the pie as they could from that point on.

Quote from: The Ent;852621I mean in AD&D & doing promos He was all, "do it this way or else". Back in OD&D He was basically The opposite, all "add whatever you want, do whatever you want with it, make it YOUR game!:)"

What happened!? :(

I wouldn't say he did a complete 180, Phillip, Omega are right in that a lot of his advice about designing CAMPAIGNS was still about doing what you want and make it fun and interesting. I feel Gygax designed many parts of AD&D as toolkit to make this happen.

Where he changed was on specific rules. For example level progression, combat, etc. And the main reason I believe for the change was not because TSR was upset that Third party companies were making a buck off of TSR*
but rather they were being bombarded with a deluge of questions about rules and requests for rulings.

At first glance a person would go "Well that comes with the territory of publishing a popular game." And yes that it is true, but with OD&D the impression I got that it was really that bad. And it can't be all blamed on OD&D organization either. RPGs are meant to be far more flexible than boardgame or a wargame and since OD&D was the first of it's kind naturally it would generate a lot more questions compared to something like a Avalon Hill or SPI wargame of similar popularity. But in conjunction with OD&D poor organization (as compared to later products) it produced a perfect storm that lead Gygax adopting the tone of "The rules you use must as written or it isn't AD&D."

Was that right approach? Who knows. We are sitting 30 years later with the benefit of hindsight. My opinion is that given the circumstances I think it was a reasonable thing to do. That the idea of corporate Gygax being greedy and arrogant was a false one although understandable why it came about.

In the end it didn't effect the popularity of AD&D because the stuff about campaign design was pure gold and vastly overshadowed the hectoring tones of a few section of the books. And while there were a few rules clunkers again the vast majority of rules were done right and done well making AD&D THE version of classic D&D for millions.

And recognize that the image of corporate Gary is a hot button issue for many especially because in later years Gygax got involved again with the wider community through the internet and turned out to be a pretty nice guy, who ran fun campaigns, and frankly was a genius at what he did.

*Third party D&D products was an issue for TSR but something that was separate from the genesis of AD&D.

Quote from: The Ent;852621The DM/OD&D Gary -> "Corporate"/AD&D Gary thing is basically tragic, to me.

I mean in AD&D & doing promos He was all, "do it this way or else". Back in OD&D He was basically The opposite, all "add whatever you want, do whatever you want with it, make it YOUR game!:)"

What happened!? :(

"CORPORATION"

By law the officers of a corporation are obliged to work to maximize shareholder wealth, or face legal penalties.

Corporate Gary represented what the market paid for.  Most people WANTED things nailed down; remember, within months of the little brown books TSR got letters that eventually turned into a flood, all wanting more precise rules.

If the corporation had stayed Gary and his childhood friend Don Kaye things might have gone differently.  Or perhaps not... as sales started to skyrocket, money is a real lure.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852718"CORPORATION"

By law the officers of a corporation are obliged to work to maximize shareholder wealth, or face legal penalties.

Corporate Gary represented what the market paid for.  Most people WANTED things nailed down; remember, within months of the little brown books TSR got letters that eventually turned into a flood, all wanting more precise rules.

If the corporation had stayed Gary and his childhood friend Don Kaye things might have gone differently.  Or perhaps not... as sales started to skyrocket, money is a real lure.

That actually makes an awful lot of sense. It still kind of sucks, but it makes me feel better about than if it was just Gary becoming a big jerk, which was my impression at the time.

When the general public will not shut the hell up about wanting more detailed rules and plea, nay DEMAND to pay money to be told what to do step by step while playing a game of the imagination, what was Gery supposed to do?

He did what anyone with half a brain would do- he accepted their money and gave them what they wanted. Anyone who could blame him for that probably has never had that kind of cash thrown in their face.

Oh my stars and garters you kids in this thread.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;852955Oh my stars and garters you kids in this thread.

Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: I was there.
Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: Tongue my peehole
Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: Just make up some shit you think is fun
Gamers: Have you ever played AD&D?
Gronan: Humna, humna, humna...Kreigspeil!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;852728When the general public will not shut the hell up about wanting more detailed rules and plea, nay DEMAND to pay money to be told what to do step by step while playing a game of the imagination, what was Gery supposed to do?

He did what anyone with half a brain would do- he accepted their money and gave them what they wanted. Anyone who could blame him for that probably has never had that kind of cash thrown in their face.

And it was a really shocking amount of money.

In 1972 or 1973 Don Lowry wanted Gary Gygax to come work for Guidon Games.  The fact that a miniatures wargame company could actually hire somebody made them a major player.

By 1976 TSR sales were $300,000 and they doubled the next year.  It was like they had the proverbial license to print money.

Quote from: Kellri;853280Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: I was there.
Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: Tongue my peehole
Gamers: Humna, humna, humna
Gronan: Just make up some shit you think is fun
Gamers: Have you ever played AD&D?
Gronan: Humna, humna, humna...Kreigspeil!

Hehehehe...(sigh) Yep...

Quote from: cranebump;853328Hehehehe...(sigh) Yep...

I have built an express lane to my peehole for your tongue.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853334I have built an express lane to my peehole for your tongue.

You should seriously consider writing for the gay porn industry, if you haven't already. You've got a singular talent for fellatio references that needn't go to waste.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;852718"CORPORATION"

By law the officers of a corporation are obliged to work to maximize shareholder wealth, or face legal penalties.

Mind tangent, but this is not true of all corporations. Benefit corporations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation) (or B-corporations) are a type of private corporation that was created specifically to allow corporate officers to also work for the public good alongside pursuing profits, without facing legal penalties for doing so.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;853334I have built an express lane to my peehole for your tongue.

Well, that was new...sorta...

("Next time on Two and a Half Men...")

Quote from: Alzrius;853397Mind tangent, but this is not true of all corporations. Benefit corporations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation) (or B-corporations) are a type of private corporation that was created specifically to allow corporate officers to also work for the public good alongside pursuing profits, without facing legal penalties for doing so.

I should have said "for-profit corporations".

Quote from: soltakss;850604One of the players in an old gaming group used to shake the dice, pause, shake them again, pause, shake them again, say something, shake them again, pause, shake them again, look puzzled when we said "Just roll the bloody dice", shake them again, pause, shake them again and then roll.

What was his explanation for this nonsense? I assume you pointed out how ridiculous this was to him.

Quote from: EOTB;851173Probably half of the content in the 2E PHB and DMG are labled as optional rules, and all of the non-core books are.

2E wanted to be all things to all people, to the maximum extent that the AD&D framework could be stretched and still be recognizable.

To a large extent I find that's why 5E manages to capture something of a 2E feel - literally everything beyond the basic rules document is optional and the designers have embraced the "big tent" ethos as warmly as they can.

Quote from: Warthur;854297To a large extent I find that's why 5E manages to capture something of a 2E feel - literally everything beyond the basic rules document is optional and the designers have embraced the "big tent" ethos as warmly as they can.

Seems that way. Does make me worry about eventual supplement bloat. But I think we can trust people to make their own choices about what they want to add. I like to say "yes" to most things, so the worst it could lead to, if I ever play 5E as my go-to, I'll have more work to do to ensure things "work" for me. Beyond that, I'd say big tent is the best approach for the hobby these days.

Quote from: cranebump;854361Seems that way. Does make me worry about eventual supplement bloat.

People keep mentioning this. But here we are a year later and theres been all of one supplement so far. The Forgotten Realms book. Which added I believe a swashbuckler path for one of the classes. Not sure what else. Its on order but some time off.

Quote from: Omega;854509People keep mentioning this. But here we are a year later and theres been all of one supplement so far. The Forgotten Realms book. Which added I believe a swashbuckler path for one of the classes. Not sure what else. Its on order but some time off.

Lets stay on topic now. We only want questions about farming please.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;854552Lets stay on topic now. We only want questions about farming please.

Ok. Fine! Be that way. Agricola still lacks combat rules. :cool: