The "Sage Advice" column of Dragon was often of interest to me in my youth, largely because I wanted to know the "right" way to interpret the rules of D&D and (especially) AD&D. While Jean Wells acted as the magazine's Sage, there was a certain semantic bluntness to many of her replies. Take, for example, this one from issue #39 (July 1980):
Wells minces no words about the fact that, in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, there is no such thing as either a lawful neutral or a dwarf paladin. How could she say otherwise? The entire purpose of the "Sage Advice" column was to present the "official" answer to readers' questions and that's the official answer. If you wish to play AD&D by the book, as Gygax intended, you don't allow either lawful neutral or dwarf paladins in your campaign. End of story.
Of course, that raises another question: do you wish to play AD&D by the book? In my experience, not many people did, mostly out of an unwillingness to be bound by each and every rule presented in the rulebooks, some of which were, I don't think it can be denied, difficult to understand. I know it's popular in some circles to suggest that AD&D simply cannot be played "by the book," should one be desirous to do so. I don't think that's true at all, though, as I said, I rarely encountered instances of it. Even now, I suspect it's quite uncommon among all but the most dedicated referees and players.
I don't see this as good or bad one way or the other. I think there are benefits and drawbacks of strict "by the book" play, just as there are benefits and drawbacks of more flexible (for lack of a better word) approaches to the game. Mind you, I am temperamentally much better suited to the "non-game" of Original D&D than the highly structured baroqueness of AD&D, so perhaps I am not fit to judge the matter. I can only say that, while my younger self, cared deeply about playing the game the "right" way, nowadays, I care more about playing it my way.
Whether AD&D can be played “by the book” depends a lot on what you mean by “by the book”. Can the PHB be used verbatim? I’m pretty sure it can. Can every rule in the DMG be used at the same time? Almost certainly not, nor were they meant to be, in my opinion. You don’t roll for disease literally by the book, but by when the DM deems it appropriate. Otherwise the game would be bogged down in minutiae that no one wants—including explicitly, as I recall, Gygax in the DMG.
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, that depends on what you mean “by the book”.
Besides issues of choice, however, there are issues of editing. Even basic rules, such as surprise, cannot reasonably be used as written. One example I ran across recently is that, by my reading, “as written” parties with a Monk as their most advantageous member could be surprised for tens of segments because the die number rolled to check for surprise is the number of segments surprised, and Monks use a d100 to check for surprise.
I think you may have a mistake for the fleeing movement rate in your table (linked PDF), unless you taking about Outdoor rates. That's too fast for the dungeon, by a factor of ten. Inside a dungeon, I believe your fleeing speed is just the combat speed of 10-ft/round per 1".
DeleteWhen Monks are surprised, they're REALLY surprised; guess that explains Lindisfarne...
ReplyDeleteThis comment wins the Internet. I can log off now.
Delete"I can only say that, while my younger self, cared deeply about playing the game the "right" way, nowadays, I care more about playing it my way."
ReplyDeleteThat would make you chaotic. :)
I suppose so. I guess there's a first time for everything.
DeleteI strongly feel what you describe is the "right" progression. Make a real effort to understand the (A)D&D rules and how they intertwine. After you have a firm grasp, and develop and intuition for the design intent, then go your own way and deal with the (unintended) consequences.
DeleteUnfortunately, I've seen (with AD&D especially...because "Advanced" etc.) the knee-jerk reaction is to immediately begin modifying things that seem thorny at first blush.
That goes double for the checks-and-balances introduced with the (1e) Advanced game that were intended to fix the (perceived) player-abuses of OD&D. Nobody used to having the run of the place wanted to be stopped! i.e. "Close the loop-holes...but not MY loop-holes!"
I also put this is the same category as nearly every new DM creating an Archer class within the first 2 weeks of picking up the game. Maybe see if you can live within the framework for a bit first...then, perhaps, get creative to spice things up.