tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post2808352051064210617..comments2024-03-18T20:22:06.331-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Easy to PleaseJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-90342865447370728662009-06-29T13:16:50.923-04:002009-06-29T13:16:50.923-04:00I’ve never been afraid of a house-rule, and I’m st...I’ve never been afraid of a house-rule, and I’m still not. What I’ve discovered, however, is that I have more fun when I let D&D be D&D. (Which I think is similar to James’ “D&D is always right” idea.)<br /><br />It’s not that D&D is sacred, it is just that when I play a game I find I have more fun when I try to embrace what it is. That doesn’t preclude some house-rules, but... I don’t know. I guess it means trying to make house-rules that fit with the spirit of the game.<br /><br />Which—for me—requires understanding why the designer and other people involved didn’t think a rule was silly or arbitrary before I change it. (Not that I always really understand it, but I make an effort.)<br /><br />Or to put it another way, I try to find a game that most closely fits what I want to do and then tweak it from there.<br /><br />One thing about my experience: I’ve seen a <em>lot</em> of gamers who have been very vocal about criticizing system X or claiming they never play system Y. Yet, when a friend offers to run a system X or system Y game, these guys are the first one’s with paper and dice out making a PC for the verboten system. Our bark is worse than our bite. I think more people are willing to play more systems than many of us think.<br /><br />Or maybe I’ve just been incredibly lucky.<br /><br />And if someone is <em>really</em> that attached to D&D, I doubt they’re going to enjoy a heavily house-ruled D&D more than a different system. Wouldn’t it just annoy them further as seeming like a bait-and-switch.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-74769540036259046252009-06-13T15:13:14.646-04:002009-06-13T15:13:14.646-04:00You make a great point, James. I'm usually a &...You make a great point, James. I'm usually a 'by the book' sort person myself - mostly because I'd rather have someone else do the hard work of dreaming up and playtesting rules.<br /><br />On the other hand, I do think it's odd that some folks seem so vehement about choosing a particular point in time - 1974, 1979, 1983, or whatever - and say "this is the one true set of rules."<br /><br />Isn't it pretty obvious that from the beginning Gary and Metzger and the rest were all experimenters, each trying to find rules that simulated their own sense of fantasy/s&s? And isn't it possible that in the 35 years since the hobby began, some new folks might have come along with new ideas about how to attain that original idea - simulating a great sword & sorcery experience?<br /><br />So for that reason I guess I'm more willing to look at new rules than you are, even at the risk of moving away from whatever you consider D&D. All of this crazy experimentation, from the original three little books to the latest indie rpg, to me is all work toward the same goal - putting me in an immersive, believable and unpredictable world of adventure.<br /><br />Vancian or point system? Armor soak or armor class? Hey, whatever produces the most realistic, most fun experience is what I'm after. So increasingly, I'm interested in trying out new rules, or combinations of new and old rules.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06875162048260852724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53260477831486193902009-06-12T22:08:59.255-04:002009-06-12T22:08:59.255-04:00I think individual gamers may exclude certain bits...<i> I think individual gamers may exclude certain bits of late Gygax material from their own personal understandings of "Gygaxian." That's about as formal as it gets in terms of definitions.</i><br /><br />One of my old friends who still plays a lot of 1E AD&D is one of those hardcore "grognard" types. His definition of "Gygaxian" only encompasses the D&D and AD&D stuff which was produced before TSR gave the core rulebooks a cover artwork facelift in 1983. This narrow definition roughly corresponds to the books and modules which were listed in TSR's 1981 catalog.<br /><br />Pulling out my old copy of the TSR 1981 catalog, the listings for D&D consists of:<br /><br />- Moldvay basic and expert D&D sets<br />- modules B1, B2, B3, X1<br /><br />while the AD&D listings consists of:<br /><br />- PH, DMG, MM, Deities and Demigods in their original cover artwork<br />- Fiend Folio<br />- the Rogues Gallery<br />- modules T1, G1-2-3, D1-2, D3, Q1, C1, C2, S1, S2, S3, S4, A1, A2, A3, A4<br />- World of Greyhawk campaign setting<br /><br />In the 1E AD&D games my friend DMs, he won't allow any other rulebooks such as Unearthed Arcana, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Wilderness Survival Guide, etc ... His DM'ing style is very much RAW from the PH and DMG solely. This is also the main reason why he has a hard time finding new players whenever one of his players quits. Whenever a player character dies (even if it was a high level character), he forces them to start again at level 1.<br /><br />Many younger gamers don't see 1E AD&D played strictly RAW as a very enticing game to play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-22742674089597345472009-06-11T18:42:27.585-04:002009-06-11T18:42:27.585-04:00I've been running an EPT campaign for 8+ month...<i>I've been running an EPT campaign for 8+ months now. I'm convinced that it's D&D.</i><br /><br>You obviously have a much more expansive definition of "D&D" than I do. I certainly understand your point of view on this and I'm sympathetic to it to some extent. I simply think that once something as different, both mechanically and content-wise, as EPT is considered "D&D," the term ceases to have much meaning.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77439364265537103052009-06-11T18:39:24.582-04:002009-06-11T18:39:24.582-04:00Is there a formal definition of "Gygaxian&quo...<i>Is there a formal definition of "Gygaxian", besides loosely defining it as the D&D and AD&D stuff that Gygax wrote for TSR before he was ousted by management in 1985?</i><br /><br>Roughly. I think individual gamers may exclude certain bits of late Gygax material from their own personal understandings of "Gygaxian." That's about as formal as it gets in terms of definitions.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-60788536800983416342009-06-10T12:13:49.408-04:002009-06-10T12:13:49.408-04:00@James:
I've been running an EPT campaign for...@James:<br /><br />I've been running an EPT campaign for 8+ months now. I'm convinced that it's D&D.Korgothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04683370654357044679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-35734403002526253572009-06-10T11:50:33.912-04:002009-06-10T11:50:33.912-04:00I sort of had mixed feelings about Vancian magic.
...I sort of had mixed feelings about Vancian magic.<br /><br />To make magic using classes less "boring", I allowed unlimited use for most cantrips (from the 1E Unearthed Arcana), spells like detect magic, read magic, etc ... and certain combat spells such as magic missile. Though in the specific case of magic missile, I required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic user's intelligence score for a hit. So even with an intelligence of 18, there is still a 10% of a magic missile failing. (In contrast, an unlimited use magic missile which always hit seemed too overpowered).<br /><br />For many of the other spells which were not particularly "combat"-like, I ran them more or less in a Vancian manner (ie. tenser's floating disk, etc ...).<br /><br />I suppose back in the day, I changed the magic system into something partially resembling 4E D&D's system of at-will, dailies, and rituals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-70843255703153073562009-06-10T07:53:28.687-04:002009-06-10T07:53:28.687-04:00Not to say the opposite... -If you play D&D by...Not to say the opposite... -If you play D&D by the RAW, it's most definitely D&D. However, I've always seen the game's malleability as genuine asset.Jimmy Swillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12549837261062727446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-7331533891315613752009-06-10T07:50:39.835-04:002009-06-10T07:50:39.835-04:00We tweaked rules from the get go. In fact, Gary en...We tweaked rules from the get go. In fact, Gary encouraged us to do it. I always felt that homebrewability is what made D&D D&D.<br /><br />Actually, the fact that 4E seems to assume all will use the RAW, is part of what makes it feel not like D&D to me.Jimmy Swillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12549837261062727446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-11298668194566586082009-06-10T02:16:40.298-04:002009-06-10T02:16:40.298-04:00Carl: Yes, exactly what I meant. The Vancian proce...Carl: Yes, exactly what I meant. The Vancian process of forgetting a spell completely after a single use when you've spent so much time perfectly memorizing it just doesn't seem to make sense to me (though Magic doesn't necessarily have to make sense, I prefer it to be relatively logical, at least magic that's been studied. Spontaneous magic I can understand following rules that don't make so much sense).Rachel Ghoulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04765944479141792643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-35676308138495354682009-06-09T23:54:31.023-04:002009-06-09T23:54:31.023-04:00Gee whiz, I like D&D too :). I wonder if that&...Gee whiz, I like D&D too :). I wonder if that's what we're all doing here... Love ya.<br /><br />Word Verification: Vasteo... I am vast. I am wasted.metamorphosissigmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18163514061779555557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14509452954543725082009-06-09T22:38:01.067-04:002009-06-09T22:38:01.067-04:00- question to James Maliszewski
Is there a forma...- question to James Maliszewski <br /><br />Is there a formal definition of "Gygaxian", besides loosely defining it as the D&D and AD&D stuff that Gygax wrote for TSR before he was ousted by management in 1985?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-26947596788479288912009-06-09T22:13:23.620-04:002009-06-09T22:13:23.620-04:00The D&D Keel was the subject of some posts on ...The D&D Keel was the subject of some posts on one of the other grognard blogs. Wheel of Samsara maybe? It's been a while. I mostly remember that what I'm playing failed that person's acid test. <br /><br />It was something like:<br />six attributes, class-and-level, saving throws, armor-makes-you-harder-to-hit, hit points<br /><br />(I currently play a houseruled Microlite74 with only 3 stats, so there you go.)<br /><br />There's something else going on here, though: I think James is right that people played and play D&D because D&D is what you play.<br /><br />I spent a few happy years in college playing GURPS (which can get pretty elephantine, I'll grant). But when I tried to get a game together in grad school, well, we played D&D. Why? Because everybody already knew how to play it. GURPS or BRP-based games, yeah, there were some people familiar with the rules, but everyone knows D&D.<br /><br />And sure, there are definite phases of tinkering you see people go through. I think most people start out with a "more realistic" critical hits table for D&D (that way lies Arms Law and Rolemaster!) or a variant magic system. This eventually gives you <i>Hackmaster</i> 4th Edition. Another place you end up is GURPS: Bookshelf.<br /><br />After that wears off, there's a backlash, and that's when you design your really-really-rules-light system. For me that was 3-point FUDGE:<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/16273299/3ptfudge<br /><br />That's the character sheet and, pretty much, the rules (it does assume a little familiarity with FUDGE, but not much).<br /><br />For me, after that, I decided that I really did want to play D&D after all, but all existing editions were overly cumbersome. Hence I ended up in Microlite74-land.Adam Thorntonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06368676086759298705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-25053965500044810602009-06-09T21:01:53.885-04:002009-06-09T21:01:53.885-04:00Yeah, my general opinion was that 3rd was still D&...Yeah, my general opinion was that 3rd was still D&D.<br /><br />But 4th? Yeah, you can see it as a continuation of the trends that were evident throughout the 3rd/3.5 product cycle. But, though a corpse can be seen as the final result of the trend of the aging of a person, a corpse isn't that person anymore, even though the 20-year-old and 60-year-old versions of the person were.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05138730966226244399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-38308228630669006552009-06-09T19:51:21.574-04:002009-06-09T19:51:21.574-04:00Anyone who doesn’t consider 3rd edition D&D an...<i>Anyone who doesn’t consider 3rd edition D&D anymore needs to try a few non-D&D games, or learn to cut down on the hyperbole.</i><br /><br>I agree that 3e is clearly a descendant of <i>AD&D</i>. I once did a textual analysis of certain spells and I found it fascinating how much of Gygaxian verbiage had actually been preserved.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6930183944404125762009-06-09T19:10:38.031-04:002009-06-09T19:10:38.031-04:00Sounds like another open question asked but left u...Sounds like another open question asked but left unexplored. James, you sometimes frustrate me when you ponder about ineffables. <br /><br />Anyone who doesn’t consider 3rd edition D&D anymore needs to try a few non-D&D games, or learn to cut down on the hyperbole. The system is so clearly and obviously an extrapolation and cleanup of the original principles that it can be nothing else. <br /><br />I can understand that perspective a lot more in regards to 4th ed, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4565808061353033952009-06-09T18:42:48.423-04:002009-06-09T18:42:48.423-04:00I dunno. Half the reason I like S&W and Basic...I dunno. Half the reason I like S&W and Basic D&D is that they are so light I can tweak the rules to my desire.<br /><br />I've always liked the concepts of D&D, but usually the execution leaves MUCH to be desired.<br /><br />And as mentioned, lots of people won't play any RPG unless it says Dungeons and Dragons on the cover, and can be bought new in your store of choice.<br /><br />(Yes. It has to be active, in print D&D. Older versions will not suffice, and woe be anyone who would wish to play anything else!)<br /><br />Frankly I have always considered D&D's continued stranglehold over the hobby to be one of the reasons the hobby is so niche. And its damned criminal.<br /><br />With games like Call of Cthulhu and D6 Star Wars around, gamers really can't look past D Ampersand D?<br /><br />Even worse are the people who only like 1 certain version. Usually the modern players. Try running S&W, Basic, or my personal favorite D&D variant Castles & Crusades for a D20 player.<br /><br />WAAAH I CAN'T CUSTOMIZE MY CHARACTER WAAAH.<br /><br />I am not joking. I have been given this complaint whenever I try to run a non WOTC D&D game.<br /><br />Of course some of these complainers also do not like Transformers Beast Wars and are thus suspect as arbiters of anything involving good taste...Captain Rufushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00296697477771399357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-54360550147032202692009-06-09T17:54:10.806-04:002009-06-09T17:54:10.806-04:00I think D&D does have a keel...
I do too. Find...<i>I think D&D does have a keel...</i><br /><br>I do too. Finding it will take some thought, but I don't think that means it doesn't exist.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-42788670906537815112009-06-09T17:15:04.986-04:002009-06-09T17:15:04.986-04:00the proverbial ship whose planks are replaced bit ...<i>the proverbial ship whose planks are replaced bit by bit</i><br /><br /> ...which is one reason they were sometimes referred to as "keels," and named at the moment of laying the keel - in the days of wooden shipbuilding you're not replacing that bit. I'd differ with you, I think D&D does have a keel... but I don't know that we could get universal agreement on any specific element that it is indispensible. Classes? Levels? Treasure?richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517340075234811323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-415890071153383042009-06-09T17:05:03.923-04:002009-06-09T17:05:03.923-04:00I don't think this makes the resulting game an...<i>I don't think this makes the resulting game any less D&D than one that uses a single saving throw vs. 6.</i><br /><br>No, it doesn't -- at least not necessarily. It's not the removal of a single element that tips the balance so much as the piling up of many such removals, like the proverbial ship whose planks are replaced bit by bit until it no longer has any of its original materials.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-45160569794809053442009-06-09T16:14:32.440-04:002009-06-09T16:14:32.440-04:00I think many people house-rule D&D because the...I think many people house-rule D&D because the rules impose upon their campaign.<br /><br />As an example, class and race restrictions or the Vancian magic system may not fit into their campaign world, hence the house rules.<br /><br />I don't think this makes the resulting game any less D&D than one that uses a single saving throw vs. 6.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999861302655014098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-39039090302257587282009-06-09T15:27:34.148-04:002009-06-09T15:27:34.148-04:00@ Richard:
versimilitude
if I pick this up and j...@ Richard:<br /><i><br />versimilitude <br />if I pick this up and just note that I think it's an unhappy word choice, can I prevent this entire thread being hijacked by it?<br /><br />I'm guessing you mean it feels wrong to you, or that it makes MUs weaker and less engaged than you would like them to be, especially at low levels. Is that about right?</i><br /><br />I can't speak for Rach but I imagine she meant exactly what the word "verisimilitude (which, by the way, is how you spell it, note the second 'i' after the 'r'...)" means, namely that vancian magic ruins the "believability" of a magical world (if such a world can be believable!). I personally agree; if you can use magic in the first place, then the idea that you can only cast a spell once, that you have to spend hours memorizing it first, and that if you have not spent hours memorizing any spells that day then you cannot cast magic, always has seemed unbelievable to me. Obviously this is splitting hairs, because who is to say what is and isn't believable when it comes to magic, but I think that magic systems which allow flexibility in what spells a caster casts and how many times he can cast them (through some kind of power drain that may or may not occur when casting) always felt more right to me than the traditional D&D treatment of magic. To bring this back around to the original thread (and hopefully fulfil your wish of not hijacking the thread with your questioning of the word choice) - I have been tinkering with replacing the casting system in D&D with one that is sort of a hybrid of Ars Magica in terms of being able to make spells up on the spot and Call of Cthulhu/Stormbringer/Elric and other Chaosium games where each spell cast has a chance of draining power from the caster. If I want to cast fireball over and over until all the magic energy is drained from my body, then Dammit! As a wizard, that is my perogative! <br />Of course, that kind of rules tinkering may indeed make what I am playing not D&D - but like many other posters, I like lots of aspects of D&D, and fixing the one that I view as broken does not mean (IMO) that I am no longer playing D&D.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07648499022366444265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-20418832768953920642009-06-09T15:15:32.983-04:002009-06-09T15:15:32.983-04:00To that end: is Barker's Empire of the Petal T...<i>To that end: is Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne (1975/TSR) "D&D" or "not D&D"?</i><br /><br>Seeing as it doesn't self-identify as <i>D&D</i>, I'd think it's pretty safe to say that it's not.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77189631910885030302009-06-09T15:14:56.153-04:002009-06-09T15:14:56.153-04:00And yet these later manifestations are still unive...<i>And yet these later manifestations are still universally considered D&D.</i><br /><br>Not universally. I am certain there are quite a few people round these parts who do not in fact consider the WotC editions to be <i>D&D</i>.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80713670011984928122009-06-09T15:01:51.871-04:002009-06-09T15:01:51.871-04:00Hmm. This is one of those posts that causes my fac...Hmm. This is one of those posts that causes my face to manifest strange expressions of consternation.<br /><br />I'd like to understand the underlying premisses better. To that end: is Barker's Empire of the Petal Throne (1975/TSR) "D&D" or "not D&D"?Korgothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04683370654357044679noreply@blogger.com