SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Dragon #43: Interesting response from EGG

Started by cranebump, March 14, 2017, 01:06:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Voros

#30
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;951732In "Ambush at Sheridan Springs" Jon Peterson chronicles the near-bacteriological growth of D&D sales from 1976 to 1981 or so.  

Peterson's article is full of great research that explode a number of myths about Gygax's ouster that you see repeated to this day, including on the Gygax and D&D wiki entries.

Equally valuable is his article on the fabled D&D film script Gygax talked about forever.

Hopefully these articles are part of his work on a book on TSR, at least until Gygax is kicked out.

Settembrini

Quote from: Voros;951552I would advance the contrary argument that Holmes, Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer's editions actually did more to propagate the D&D system than AD&D. And the sales figues of the Red Box reinforce this. After B/X I would theorize that most 'AD&D' groups were really mashing-up B/X or BECMI and AD&D to make AD&D playable throughout most of the 80s until the arrival of 2e.

Yes, but the D&D Basic boxes were post-AD&D. Really, if you go from reading OD&D and then the 1e DMG and then any of the basic boxes, it becomes quite obvious. OD&D is a different beast altogether, which most people cannot wrap their head around because of exposure to other editions.

And the quotes by Gary show he WROTE AD&D but played his idea of OD&D. But we can only say this because he WROTE AD&D and everything else followed in this mold, which makes his remarks from his continued play of OD&D weird to some. To me it makes perfect sense.
If there can\'t be a TPK against the will of the players it\'s not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

DavetheLost

The Gygaxian pronouncements from on high were all I had to go by, and they gave me rather the impression that EGG was a pompous ass. He did not do his personal image any favors with some of them.

It is only now, as I get to know some of the people who knew him in person and gamed with him, that I see a different side of him.

estar

Quote from: Settembrini;951754Yes, but the D&D Basic boxes were post-AD&D.

Except for Holmes.

Tristram Evans

Holmes is interesting, as it was an "outsider" coming in to give their interpretation of the system, largely influenced by Warlock. I wonder what Arneson thought of the Holmes game?

estar

Quote from: DavetheLost;951790The Gygaxian pronouncements from on high were all I had to go by, and they gave me rather the impression that EGG was a pompous ass. He did not do his personal image any favors with some of them.

It is only now, as I get to know some of the people who knew him in person and gamed with him, that I see a different side of him.

The influx of serious money and the day to day differences over what direction TSR should take obviously has an influence on Gygax. People, including folks like Rob Kuntz, tend to latch on that especially given his behavior when he was in California. That the "good" Gary of the OD&D was corrupted by corporate greed into corporate Gary.

Now that I read several books and read extensive antedotes including ones by Gygax himself. Along with my experience in the world of small to medium sized family owned corporations (machinery for me). My opinion is more nuanced.

First off much of what was written in the voice of "corporate" Gary was written AFTER the release of AD&D. Starting Around 1980ish. That includes the fights and argument with the Blumes over the direction TSR was going and the whole experience in Southern California.

There is a whole time period between the release of OD&D in 1974 to the release of the Monster Manual in 1977 that Gygax was the creative force and everybody was preoccupied with the growth of TSR. You read stories from that time period to me there very little of the corporate in-fighting or concern over money that occurred later. Everybody appeared to be in a creative fever and pre-occupied on getting some reins on the D&D fad that was exploding all around them.

That the whole Rules are written in stone attitude projected in the first three AD&D and the few handful of Dragon Magazine articles about AD&D (#10 to #30). is a result of the experience of those three years. The overwhelming barrage of questions, comments, and complaints by the fans of OD&D. I was struck by how similar the reaction of the people involved are to those that are involved when a internet forum, blog, or company explodes in popularity. AD&D was written as a reaction to the "spam" that TSR was getting from their fans.

Part of it was noble and a good idea (a better organized and easier to learn version of D&D). Other parts were an overreaction (the rules are official and the only official way to play AD&D is by the letter of the rules).

estar

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951808Holmes is interesting, as it was an "outsider" coming in to give their interpretation of the system, largely influenced by Warlock.

My belief it was the fact that Holmes showed Gary Gygax a largely completed coherent manuscript that was better organized and easier to learn from. That probably his initial reaction after looking at that day's pile of fan letters was "Shit we better sign this guy get the rights to this and publish it as AD&D is still a few years out."

Voros

#37
Quote from: estar;951809There is a whole time period between the release of OD&D in 1974 to the release of the Monster Manual in 1977 that Gygax was the creative force and everybody was preoccupied with the growth of TSR. You read stories from that time period to me there very little of the corporate in-fighting or concern over money that occurred later. Everybody appeared to be in a creative fever and pre-occupied on getting some reins on the D&D fad that was exploding all around them.

Long before the release of AD&D, from March 1976 onwards according to Peterson, Gygax and TSR became well known for quickly threatening to sue fans, designers and smaller companies who came even close to infringing on their IP.

This was despite his free borrowing of concepts from others, probably the clearest example was his borrowing the idea of the thief class from a small group of fans/designers who went on to publish the Manual Aurania.

So the period of free creative expression was perhaps even shorter lived than you suggest.

The supreme irony being that much later after being turfed TSR would use the same heavy-handed enforcement of copyright to shut down Gygax's own work. Sad all around.

Voros

#38
Quote from: Settembrini;951754Yes, but the D&D Basic boxes were post-AD&D. Really, if you go from reading OD&D and then the 1e DMG and then any of the basic boxes, it becomes quite obvious. OD&D is a different beast altogether, which most people cannot wrap their head around because of exposure to other editions.

As Estar already pointed out Holmes box set came out before AD&D and is based on OD&D. I think most people didn't understand OD&D well when it was first released because it is not well laid out or explained. That's why there was a need for the Holmes set in the first place. I had no problem 'wrapping my head around' the OD&D set due my previous knowledge of the core rules but found it a slog to read.

I disagree that 'it is a different beast altogether.' I think the changes between editions up to 3.0 (and even then) are generally minor, some fans like to exaggerate the differences in what to me and I suspect anyone outside the subculture are really minor variations and expansions on the same fairly simple core mechanics and rules. The ease with which players can move between editions and easily adapt material and adventures from edition to edition reinforces this. Only 4e is mechanically different enough to present a real problem in adaptation.

Tristram Evans

Quote from: Voros;951817As Estar already pointed out Holmes box set came out before AD&D and is based on OD&D. I think most people didn't understand OD&D well when it was first released because it is not well laid out or explained. That's why there was a need for the Holmes set in the first place. I had no problem 'wrapping my head around' the OD&D set due my previous knowledge of the core rules but found it a slog to read.

I disagree that 'it is a different beast altogether.' I think the changes between editions up to 3.0 (and even then) are generally minor, some fans like to exaggerate the differences in what to me and I suspect anyone outside the subculture are really minor variations and expansions on the same fairly simple core mechanics and rules. The ease with which players can move between editions and easily adapt material and adventures from edition to edition reinforces this. Only 4e is mechanically different enough to present a real problem in adaptation.

My experience playing in the 90s was making use of the 2nd edition player's handbook, the 1st edition DMG, and supplementary material from Basic, AD&D and 2e without any issue.

Voros

Yeah we used adventures from Basic and 1e interchangably as well.

Larsdangly

Pretzels is the same. I understand GG had reasons to present a sort of meta interpretation of the differences among the editions, but I don't think I've ever gamed with anyone who gave a shit.

Settembrini

Quote from: Voros;951817As Estar already pointed out Holmes box set came out before AD&D and is based on OD&D. I think most people didn't understand OD&D well when it was first released because it is not well laid out or explained. That's why there was a need for the Holmes set in the first place. I had no problem 'wrapping my head around' the OD&D set due my previous knowledge of the core rules but found it a slog to read.

I disagree that 'it is a different beast altogether.' I think the changes between editions up to 3.0 (and even then) are generally minor, some fans like to exaggerate the differences in what to me and I suspect anyone outside the subculture are really minor variations and expansions on the same fairly simple core mechanics and rules. The ease with which players can move between editions and easily adapt material and adventures from edition to edition reinforces this. Only 4e is mechanically different enough to present a real problem in adaptation.

Holmes is advertising AD&D already, no? So the basic, Gygaxian, mode of play is established.

And I think you misread/I miswrote regarding the changes. I agree there is great similarity from AD&D up even towards 5th, skipping 4e. But OD&D, as it was played by Arneson was really a different thing. And even after filtered through EGG, it became interpreted to be RQ, Traveller and what have you. Or, the Basic/AD&D line of thinking. And this difference, between having a strategic diplomatic (Dippy T?) boardgame to fuel a miniature wargame campaign on the map of the Great Kingdom where eventually you would enter the Dungeons of Blackmoor Castle for some outside reason in a Wargaming club with its own fanzine...this setup was changed to the 1 referee + 2-12 players (let's say) setup. The outdoor survival stuff is a replacement to the Great Kingdom (or Tekumel etc.), and its a crucial step in transforming an ongoing club activity into a thing that people who would gather round a single referee without a club would do.

And that is Gygax's doing, a mold that has only very rarely been broken. GDW's Great Game was a well documented instance, others are even more obscure.
If there can\'t be a TPK against the will of the players it\'s not an RPG.- Pierce Inverarity

S'mon

Quote from: Voros;951552I would advance the contrary argument that Holmes, Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer's editions actually did more to propagate the D&D system than AD&D. And the sales figues of the Red Box reinforce this. After B/X I would theorize that most 'AD&D' groups were really mashing-up B/X or BECMI and AD&D to make AD&D playable throughout most of the 80s until the arrival of 2e.

IME "Basic D&D" was ignored as a "kids' game" by most teenage D&D players. But in hindsight we left out so much of AD&D that in practice it played pretty much like B/X, just with race & class split.
Shadowdark Wilderlands (Fridays 2pm UK/9am EST)  https://smons.blogspot.com/2024/08/shadowdark.html
Open table game on Roll20, PM me to join! Current Start Level: 1

Voros

Quote from: Settembrini;951854Holmes is advertising AD&D already, no? So the basic, Gygaxian, mode of play is established.

I have no idea what 'Gygaxian' mode of play means and doubt I want to know.

The Holmes set was released before AD&D, that is a simple fact you can look up and it refers to AD&D because it was trying to pre-sell AD&D.

Apparently either Holmes was instructed to include the references to AD&D and went back and inserted them into the completed manuscript or Gygax inserted the references himself.