Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I never worried too much about that, because (contrary to some of the Talmudis Scholarship gang of the OSR) I don't actually buy the notion that the mechanics were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that.

Carefully crafted? No. But there was some sort of pattern being loosely worked from. And the math was at least being payed a little attention to. Least at first.

Havent looked at the demi-humans for AD&D but I suspect its going to break down.

Quote from: RPGPundit;915311I never worried too much about that, because (contrary to some of the Talmudis Scholarship gang of the OSR) I don't actually buy the notion that the mechanics were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that.

Bullshit Nobody says that about OD&D or AD&D on any of the places where they dissect the rules. Your run in with the "Taliban" of the OSR was a passing match between you and Stuart Marshall and enflamed by the fact you insulted his work on OSRIC and he insulted you over your work on Foward to Adeventure.

Don't get me wrong there are fanatical assholes in the OSR. But even they are annoying to the other forum posters and invariably get banned. Finally on the last couple of years deep discussion of classic edition has more onto firmer grounded due to the research that has come out. There is a lot less wild ass speculation and the like because we have stuff like Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor where the authors not only talked to people but also read original notes, drafts, and newsletters.

Well, we had our first actual death in my AD&D campaign last night. The PCs were exploring the secret caverns beneath the burnt out guard house in Restenford. They opened a door and were face to face with a pair of zombies and a pair of ghouls. The human fighter pulled out a potion of speed that been found on an earlier adventure and drank it. He was infused with the rush of speed but sadly hit by a ghoul claw attack and then paralyzed. When the potion had run its course and aged him a year, he failed his system shock roll and died.

The life of an adventurer is a hard one.

And then a cat ate the magic user... :cool:

Quote from: Ghost;915426I think the fact that they weren't is one of the things I like best about them.

Me too!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;915456Nor I. But I do think that the people involved had been wargaming for years, so when they just wrote up a table they had some decent instincts. But on the other hand, if there were "power imbalances", that same wargaming background would mean they weren't worried about it. "You're weak? So it'll be a sweeter victory when you win!" "He's strong? Sure, but he's not that smart."

"Decent instincts" I'll certainly buy. Same with your other point, because those are things that I still tell my players.

Quote from: estar;915670Bullshit Nobody says that about OD&D or AD&D on any of the places where they dissect the rules. Your run in with the "Taliban" of the OSR was a passing match between you and Stuart Marshall and enflamed by the fact you insulted his work on OSRIC and he insulted you over your work on Foward to Adeventure.

Don't get me wrong there are fanatical assholes in the OSR. But even they are annoying to the other forum posters and invariably get banned. Finally on the last couple of years deep discussion of classic edition has more onto firmer grounded due to the research that has come out. There is a lot less wild ass speculation and the like because we have stuff like Playing at the World and Hawk & Moor where the authors not only talked to people but also read original notes, drafts, and newsletters.

I have seen old-school gamers arguing (on this site, for one) that things in OD&D were all very carefully planned, perfect design, etc etc.

It's an essential part of the "purity" argument, after all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916150I have seen old-school gamers arguing (on this site, for one) that things in OD&D were all very carefully planned, perfect design, etc etc.

It's an essential part of the "purity" argument, after all.

Then post some links, because I don't remember posts like that. What I do remember are plenty of posts of people who like OD&D, warts and all, and say that it is a playable game, myself among them. I also remember a lot of testy reaction when people basically said the equivalent of "Why you are playing such a badly written, broken RPG?"

And for what it worth I do agree that OD&D needed better organization and a rewrite. But with good advice from people who successfully used OD&D in a campaign it work well pretty 'as is'. Most of the problem stems from the fact that it spread outside of Gygax's target audience of the miniature wargame community of the early 70s. An audience than didn't have the common experience of trying to run campaigns with referees. OD&D didn't explain that in detail. Since the default assumption in games that you use the rules as written in order to play. It lead to confusion.

Quote from: estar;916233And for what it worth I do agree that OD&D needed better organization and a rewrite. But with good advice from people who successfully used OD&D in a campaign it work well pretty 'as is'.

They did. With B and then BX D&D. Even as late as BX it was still using many of OD&D's rules sometimes updated a little or alot. Mixed in with bits of Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Quote from: estar;916233Then post some links, because I don't remember posts like that.

Well, from the Mike Mearls thread, our own lovable curmudgeon has:

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;911784Back in the day (hack kaf wheeze) there was this thing called PLAYTESTING.

Arneson ran BLACKMOOR for 2 years before showing it to Gygax, and we KNOW the rules were not static.  Gygax ran GREYHAWK for over a year before D&D was published, sometimes seven days a week, and we know THOSE rules were not static.

He's not addressing balance, but it is an argument for carefully planned.

QuoteWhat I do remember are plenty of posts of people who like OD&D, warts and all, and say that it is a playable game, myself among them. I also remember a lot of testy reaction when people basically said the equivalent of "Why you are playing such a badly written, broken RPG?"

Definitely true. There have definitely been people who have said that. But that's a reason to feel hurt by the comments of people who are judging OD&D for not being good at or set up for purposes for which it was never intended (a ridiculous proposition). It is not, however, an argument for or against the proposition that the mechanics of OD&D "were all carefully crafted and planned out for ideal balance or something like that. "

Frankly, it would be odd if they were if that was not a design goal, and I don't think EGG ever stated (for OD&D at least, although looking back I see that the quote Pundit was referencing was actually about AD&D) that it was. Looking at the weapon vs. AC tables, they seem to be designed to reflect an interpretation of realism in which weapon was better or worse vs. which armor, not making the different weapons equally balanced. Looking at the spell divisions, they seem divided based on which class would most appropriately have that ability, not a sense of balance between them. For where hp ending up being (between rangers vs. paladins/fighter or druids vs. clerics) to be "someone was paying some sort of attention to where everyone would end up in the HP progression." (which is what Pundit was responding to) would seem to be an outlier. The game wasn't balanced because balance was not a design goal.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916350Well, from the Mike Mearls thread, our own lovable curmudgeon has:

...

He's not addressing balance, but it is an argument for carefully planned.

That looks to me like the exact opposite of "carefully planned." To me, that's just saying, hey, fuck it, let's just play, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

His is not an argument for carefully planned, or the game isn't really carefully planned?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;916373His is not an argument for carefully planned, or the game isn't really carefully planned?

I have no idea what Gronan's intent was. But to me, rules changing under extensive playtesting suggests that much of the game was not planned by the author(s) but rather evolved through trial-and-error and actual play. Of course, extensive playtesting doesn't exclude the possibility that there was ALSO careful planning. But extensive playtesting in and of itself is the opposite. If you want to make the case that someone was making the case that there was careful planning, this is not valid evidence in support of that thesis.

Quote from: Lunamancer;916389I have no idea what Gronan's intent was. But to me, rules changing under extensive playtesting suggests that much of the game was not planned by the author(s) but rather evolved through trial-and-error and actual play. Of course, extensive playtesting doesn't exclude the possibility that there was ALSO careful planning. But extensive playtesting in and of itself is the opposite. If you want to make the case that someone was making the case that there was careful planning, this is not valid evidence in support of that thesis.

Um... you know nothing of game design and playtesting then.

Many are the games that started out as very planned. Playtesting is where by trial and error you find what parts work and what dont, if any. Hammer out the bugs. Some games change allmost none at all from inception to publication. Others change so much as to be nigh unrecognizable. Lots of reasons. Feedback from playtesters, playtester suggestions, new ideas developed in the interim.

Some games start out as just an "idea" or even just a theme and from that framework something grows. Some games start off as just one mechanic idea and then you puzzle out what to do with it or what other parts are needed to make a running engine.

I have the solution to the OP's problem.