tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post150159281801529373..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Interesting QuotationJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-64396525274786960052010-08-09T19:05:32.069-04:002010-08-09T19:05:32.069-04:00I think that JB made a very good point. These game...<i>I think that JB made a very good point. These games were less of a toolbox because, unless you are around 60 you were a kid when these games came out and we were all pretty much follow the rules of the game back then. Society, and our perceptions through aging, have changed how we approach this now.</i><br /><br>Yep. I recall reading something by Gygax where he noted that, when they released the original game, they assumed their audience would be older people with experience kitbashing and house ruling through wargaming. But the game spread beyond that assumed audience, thus necessitating various intro/basic versions of the game. I'm grateful for those versions, since they're what got me into the hobby in the first place, but now, ironically, I'm closer to the assumed age of OD&D's audience and I find it much more to my taste.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15468718739297354102010-08-09T00:11:40.869-04:002010-08-09T00:11:40.869-04:00Richard,
The only thought I have is that in 1979 ...Richard,<br /><br />The only thought I have is that in 1979 or so, when AD&D was just barely out, I played at MIT. There were a variety of games that people flowed between, bringing characters back and forth, and there were some pretty significant house rules, yet it mostly worked. Players would just ask the GM what house rules were significant and usually adapted quite easily.<br /><br />FrankFrankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15855679156477779666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63571605489718654072010-08-08T15:20:57.327-04:002010-08-08T15:20:57.327-04:00I think that JB made a very good point. These game...I think that JB made a very good point. These games were less of a toolbox because, unless you are around 60 you were a kid when these games came out and we were all pretty much follow the rules of the game back then. Society, and our perceptions through aging, have changed how we approach this now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-65206383474232292372010-08-08T13:32:55.458-04:002010-08-08T13:32:55.458-04:00My point is simply that there could have been a lo...<i>My point is simply that there could have been a lot less meaningless “edition wars” if not for these TD editorials which people use as proof texts for arguments which don’t hold water in the real world. But that’s just my opinion.</i><br /><br>Quite possibly but these editorials and others like them had an impact; they're part of the lasting legacy of TSR, even 25+ years after the fact. Once the split between <i>D&D</i> and <i>AD&D</i> happened, TSR pretty much had to provide some justification for the existence of two separate game lines and this was the tack they took. I happen to think there <i>are</i> genuine differences in design and approach between the two games, but then that's just my opinion.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-19691549417764979902010-08-07T19:58:17.671-04:002010-08-07T19:58:17.671-04:00James-- You asked me to clarify my remark about th...James-- You asked me to clarify my remark about these TD editorials fracturing the fanbase. Right after you posted that, johnarendt and JB posted just the sort of contentious arguments that turn the B/X and AD&D fans upon each other. These B/X vs. AD&D arguments, in my mind, always have at their core the question of “what is AD&D?” which go back to these editorials of thirty years ago. But if you look at how AD&D is and always has been actually played compared to B/X, and if you look at the actual introductions in the AD&D hardcovers compared to the introductions in the B/X manuals, there is NO difference. BOTH have the "rules as suggestions" approach. BOTH have the idea that "the DM’s ruling trumps the book”. BOTH are merely vehicles for the imagination. And BOTH have a valid claim to be the continuation of OD&D.<br /><br />My point is simply that there could have been a lot less meaningless “edition wars” if not for these TD editorials which people use as proof texts for arguments which don’t hold water in the real world. But that’s just my opinion.Falconerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00474925985191663745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16948457676411603382010-08-07T17:02:58.447-04:002010-08-07T17:02:58.447-04:00In my own highly personal experience there was one...In my own highly personal experience there was one very important difference between how we played in 1984 and subsequently - in 1984 we were in school and there were half a dozen D&D games going on in various classrooms at lunchtime. People could drift between groups, possibly carry their characters over (if they had someone to vouch for them, that they'd got all their stuff "without cheating" through actual play) and pick up and put down games as they wished. For that to work, there had to be a core ruleset that everyone agreed on. It didn't prevent house rules from being created, but it did put some brakes on the process. In later years I've mostly experienced games entirely under the control of single GMs, often with "sealed" rule sets - ones for which there is no reliable manual in the players' hands - that is rules subject to adjustment by GM fiat on the fly. For these sorts of games the rules-as-suggestions philosophy works great, but I suspect that in the mid 80s TSR was trying to create a property more like the one I encountered at school.<br /><br />Sorry, long and wordy for a simple point.richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-39555449980611459712010-08-07T15:51:03.680-04:002010-08-07T15:51:03.680-04:00Anarchist,
Fixed. Thanks for the catch.Anarchist,<br /><br />Fixed. Thanks for the catch.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28159221533616126202010-08-07T15:49:18.551-04:002010-08-07T15:49:18.551-04:00I think this sentence might be incomplete:
Even s...I think this sentence might be incomplete:<br /><br /><i>Even so, it's an arguable point, one that TSR's own early publishing history.</i>anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38837685925805012202010-08-07T15:26:44.497-04:002010-08-07T15:26:44.497-04:00For example, the most use we ever got out of the D...<i>For example, the most use we ever got out of the DMG was as a compendia of magic items, whilst the players handbook was a pricelist, a set of character classes, and a compendia of spells. The monster manual got the most use. Transition was trivial. Except for the vastly inflated price of platemail in AD&D. I think only one or two (out of some fifty or so people would have read anything else in them).</i><br /><br>I think a lot of people played this way back in the day. In my own group, we vacillated between doing just what you describe and trying to stick as close to the rules as written as we could, but the latter position was hard to maintain, since so many aspects of <i>AD&D</i> simply don't work well in play, or at least they didn't in our group.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73155933155482955682010-08-07T15:24:46.144-04:002010-08-07T15:24:46.144-04:00Wasn't a desire to cut certain people out of r...<i>Wasn't a desire to cut certain people out of royalties one of the things that spurred the creation of AD&D to begin with?</i><br /><br>That's the supposition many have made; it's certainly a plausible one. Whether it's the truth (in whole or in part), I don't think we're in a position to know, given the sealed nature of the lawsuits Arneson launched against TSR.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-52493241953950870522010-08-07T15:22:43.650-04:002010-08-07T15:22:43.650-04:00I know that in 1984 I was much the same way...I li...<i>I know that in 1984 I was much the same way...I like AD&D BECAUSE it was so comprehensive...and yes, we did NOT believe that some rules were OPTIONAL unless specifically written to be that. When the UA was published as the first official non-monster rulebook for AD&D since the PHB ad DMG, we adapted it as an update and replacement of earlier rules (like unarmed combat, racial restrictions, sub-classes of main classes). We did not dispute its authenticity or "canon-ness." It was a game, game's had rules, rules were meant to be obeyed.</i><br /><br>This is pretty much how my friends and I thought as well. Good to know we weren't the only ones.<br /><br /><i>A) the B/X edition of the game is the greatest and, B) that B/X is the real inheritor of the Little Brown Books.</i><br /><br>I think it's more uncontroversial to say that B/X probably did more to introduce and foster a style of play that was closer to that of the LBBs than any other edition of the game.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-32426766312816259062010-08-07T15:19:33.740-04:002010-08-07T15:19:33.740-04:00It's an unfortunate piece of the TSR legacy.
I...<i>It's an unfortunate piece of the TSR legacy.</i><br /><br>I agree, which is why I've been trying very hard to "unlearn" some of the things I thought I knew about the history of the game in the mid to late 80s. I'm beginning to think that the <i>D&D</i> line was where the action really was back then.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-92193624935675784482010-08-07T14:50:43.313-04:002010-08-07T14:50:43.313-04:00We found the AD&D rules useful because they we...We found the AD&D rules useful because they were compiled together and durable, but we still played them in the same manner as OD&D (LBB). Which is, I suppose, incorrectly by the presumptions of Mr Mohan.<br /><br />For example, the most use we ever got out of the DMG was as a compendia of magic items, whilst the players handbook was a pricelist, a set of character classes, and a compendia of spells. The monster manual got the most use. Transition was trivial. Except for the vastly inflated price of platemail in AD&D. I think only one or two (out of some fifty or so people would have read anything else in them).<br /><br />But by then we were used to making stuff up as we went along, designing our own campaigns and the like. The only time when we needed to actually hew close to the rules was when we were running open public tournaments. And even then, some of the tournaments were decidedly non-standard [plutonium golem's anyone?]. But people tended to enjoy them just as much, if not more.<br /><br />[Interesting enough, double checking the Players Handbook has the following comment from Mike Carr: <i>"Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator."</i> Actual permission in the rules for rules-lawyering!]Reverance Pavanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01217657347160811310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-36498864515752265692010-08-07T14:34:36.003-04:002010-08-07T14:34:36.003-04:00I think there might be legal reasons behind his cl...I think there might be legal reasons behind his claim that the games are TOTALLY SEPARATE. REALLY.<br /><br />Wasn't a desire to cut certain people out of royalties one of the things that spurred the creation of AD&D to begin with?Vigilancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12302020918798504358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-12005010798090353652010-08-07T14:30:05.183-04:002010-08-07T14:30:05.183-04:00"You should buy the AD&D game, because [a..."You should buy the AD&D game, because [ad hoc and weasel-worded appeal to the systematic interconnectedness of its rules], but whatever you do, you should keep buying issues of Dragon because [reasoning that directly contradicts the previous]"<br /><br />I see. Thanks so much Mr. Mohan.<br /><br />As a young man the thought of mailing a letter and waiting weeks for this reply makes my brain explode.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078173255668986590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15552941960528729172010-08-07T14:18:09.308-04:002010-08-07T14:18:09.308-04:00Here are my thoughts:
1) There's a little mat...Here are my thoughts:<br /><br />1) There's a little matter of perspective here. In 1984 (and earlier) I don't believe people were looking at these games as "tool boxes" the way 21st century players do. People made house rules out of NECESSITY when a particular situation wasn't covered. People playing OD&D probably DID feel the LBBs were restrictive (they weren't thinking 'wow, how can I use this very loosely written game to MAKE MY OWN FANTASY WORLD,' something many of us today salivate over). I know that in 1984 I was much the same way...I like AD&D BECAUSE it was so comprehensive...and yes, we did NOT believe that some rules were OPTIONAL unless specifically written to be that. When the UA was published as the first official non-monster rulebook for AD&D since the PHB ad DMG, we adapted it as an update and replacement of earlier rules (like unarmed combat, racial restrictions, sub-classes of main classes). We did not dispute its authenticity or "canon-ness." It was a game, game's had rules, rules were meant to be obeyed.<br /><br />The TSR think tank of the day (sans Arneson) may have had a similar concept of "game" and "rules" (rather than "potential imaginary setting from which to create all sorts of games"), and from that perspective, the reply makes perfect sense to me. It's unimaginative and inside the box thinking, but we've had a lot of concept-bashing since then.<br /><br />Whether some recognized this as a way to better commercialize the product and make more money...well, that's a different discussion.<br /><br />2) This article, coupled with my 21st century perspective is what makes me feel that A) the B/X edition of the game is the greatest and, B) that B/X is the real inheritor of the Little Brown Books. For me, in my maturity with years of gaming experience, I see the benefit of a game that does not have unstretchable and unbreakable rules...it's what I WANT in an RPG to better show off its imaginary aspects (though I want it divorced from Chainmail and wargaming). From Tom Moldvay's FOREWARD in the Basic book:<br /><br />"The D&D game has neither winners nor losers. It has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works. In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination. The important thing is to enjoy the adventure."<br /><br />THIS is D&D, not AD&D. For me, it's what I want. In 1984, I didn't yet realize that myself.<br />: )JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08532311924539491087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-88926406362658582442010-08-07T14:17:42.698-04:002010-08-07T14:17:42.698-04:00Yep, this is the stuff that drives me nuts about 1...Yep, this is the stuff that drives me nuts about 1E AD&D - loaded with bloat and fiddly bits most people ignore - and pushed onto the market as the be-all, end-all final word. Any sane person house rules the heck out of AD&D. I find it more intellectually honest to stick with OD&D and B/X in the first place where the DIY mentality was encouraged.<br /><br />But responses like Kim's show how TSR really was the WOTC of their day - separating the game lines to distance AD&D from the 1974 copyright and then peddling AD&D via marketing-speak as the final word in D&D gaming to further turn OD&D into a stepchild. It's an unfortunate piece of the TSR legacy.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18031181424520125213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-2865426257659660782010-08-07T13:41:53.251-04:002010-08-07T13:41:53.251-04:00I can’t believe they are still brought up, as they...<i>I can’t believe they are still brought up, as they still seem to have a divisive influence on the Gygaxian fanbase.</i><br /><br>What does that even mean?James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77787037292636030402010-08-07T13:38:19.071-04:002010-08-07T13:38:19.071-04:00Sorry, James, I don’t agree that there is anything...Sorry, James, I don’t agree that there is anything there to chew over. I think these articles in TD (regarding the difference/compatibility between D&D and AD&D or the officialness/unstretchability of the latter) were ridiculous then and are ridiculous now. I can’t believe they are still brought up, as they still seem to have a divisive influence on the Gygaxian fanbase. --FalconerFalconerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00474925985191663745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-60172330390915630632010-08-07T12:43:10.924-04:002010-08-07T12:43:10.924-04:00The asserted amazement at OD&D being more rest...The asserted amazement at OD&D being more restrictive is kind of funny. Obviously it has fewer races, classes, spells, monsters, magic items, etc. If a player comes to OD&D and says, "I want a gnome illusionist with <i>spectral force</i> and a <i>dagger of venom</i>", the by-the-book answer is, "We don't have any of that stuff."Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-3121280389861489992010-08-07T12:34:09.355-04:002010-08-07T12:34:09.355-04:00The bit about all of the work that would go into c...The bit about all of the work that would go into converting from one rules set to the other is particularly amusing. Scrap an entire campaign? Come on, it takes about a minute to figure out what to move around or change from AD&D to or from O/B-X D&D. If I can convert a Gwar or a Blondie song into a D&D spell or item in twenty minutes I don't see the logic in having to scrap a B-X game because you included githyankis and githzerai. Breathe, take 2-3 minutes to red the Fiend Folio entries and the each monster's special abilities and bang! It is really a painless process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89830780076903684682010-08-07T12:26:31.120-04:002010-08-07T12:26:31.120-04:00It's weird seeing AD&D talked about as a c...It's weird seeing AD&D talked about as a complete, cogent set of rules. I guess it's more that than OD&D, but the approach I've always taken to it is as a HUGE collection of possible rules which can be mixed and matched to taste. Certainly, going by other AD&D players I know, that doesn't seem too odd an interpretation.Don Jollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01638044199376609034noreply@blogger.com