TheRPGSite

In response to a prickly letter about the "intent" of AD&D (and what the reader considered Lord G's sanctimonious attitude), Mr. Gygax responded with:

"Eric,
You seem to have D&D confused with AD&D. The former promotes alteration and free-wheeling adaptation. The latter absolutely decries it, for the obvious reason that Advanced D&D is a structured and complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide. Either you play AD&D, or you play something else!"

I remember reading that this, indeed, was the original intent behind the advanced edition, to standardize play (for tournaments, was it?). But this is the first time I've seen it in print (because I haven't read enough, obviously).  However, in reading various accounts of EGG's home play, it certainly seemed pretty freewheeling. So, my question to the more knowledgeable among us is, was Mr. Gygax often "playing something else?" Or did he stick to the rules, once said rules came out?

P.S. Semi-related note: In the same issue, there is mention of 1980 convention play, to include an award for Outstanding Dungeon Master for Frank Mentzer, in which Mr. Mentzer says he played "by the book."  For the curious (and otherwise), the issue in question can be found here. (https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg043.pdf)

My 0,02 EU are tha I remember Gronan saying that after AD&D got out, the existing groups in Lake Geneva, or at least his, picked whatever they liked from the rules, added it to the previous rules, and kept playing. I also remember him saying that yes, AD&D was meant to "standardize" play, although I think he mentioned it in regards to the "tournament modules" and people wanting a competitive form of roleplaying:).

And the cover of the issue you mention announces "a new Traveller adventure", so I think it's safe to say people weren't only interested in (A)D&D at the time;).

I think the easiest way to think of it would be that Gary had a "gaming hat" and a "company man hat", and that when he was speaking "officially" of course he'd plug AD&D "as it is."

There were a number of forces behind AD&D, but the need of uniformity for tournaments was definitely one of them.  And in that era there was a HUGE demand for competitive D&D tournaments with prizes.

And yeah, most adult gamers who were playing D&D, not just in Minneapolis, where I was at the time, but in other places, read that little screed of Gary's and said, "That's nice, Cupcake."

I'll bet the Company Man was also defending the differentiation from D&D and the "uniqueness" of Advanced because of the Arneson settlement.

There are elements of AD&D that I'll bet were never play tested, chief among them being the grappling rules. Some people claim that the weapon speed rule and the interaction of combat segments with spellcasting are functional but I'd be surprised if they saw much actual use. OTOH the unplayabity of the weapon-vs-AC table is vastly exaggerated today.

http://dmdavid.com/tag/basic-and-advanced-why-gary-gygax-claimed-advanced-dungeons-dragons-was-a-different-game/

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951477http://dmdavid.com/tag/basic-and-advanced-why-gary-gygax-claimed-advanced-dungeons-dragons-was-a-different-game/

Interesting and informative read.

Quote from: cranebump;951423In response to a prickly letter about the "intent" of AD&D (and what the reader considered Lord G's sanctimonious attitude), Mr. Gygax responded with:

"Eric,
You seem to have D&D confused with AD&D. The former promotes alteration and free-wheeling adaptation. The latter absolutely decries it, for the obvious reason that Advanced D&D is a structured and complete game system aimed at uniformity of play world-wide. Either you play AD&D, or you play something else!"

I remember reading that this, indeed, was the original intent behind the advanced edition, to standardize play (for tournaments, was it?). But this is the first time I've seen it in print (because I haven't read enough, obviously).  However, in reading various accounts of EGG's home play, it certainly seemed pretty freewheeling. So, my question to the more knowledgeable among us is, was Mr. Gygax often "playing something else?" Or did he stick to the rules, once said rules came out?

P.S. Semi-related note: In the same issue, there is mention of 1980 convention play, to include an award for Outstanding Dungeon Master for Frank Mentzer, in which Mr. Mentzer says he played "by the book."  For the curious (and otherwise), the issue in question can be found here. (https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg043.pdf)

My theory it was because TSR was deluged with "spam" in the form of dozens upon dozens of letters, phone calls, and direct questions. The sheer volume of inquires dominates many of the antedotes from the mid 70s onwards. Just read Kask's intro to Gods, Demigods, and Heroes. Of course it not the only thing that was considered during the development of AD&D but the rigid attitude about what AD&D is rooted in that issue.

Quote from: Arminius;951474I'll bet the Company Man was also defending the differentiation from D&D and the "uniqueness" of Advanced because of the Arneson settlement.

I think you've found the all-too-banal reason for AD&D.

Hundreds rather than dozens.  Possibly even thousands over the years.

Quote from: Voros;951537I think you've found the all-too-banal reason for AD&D.

Nothing is ever a single reason.

If you were going to pick a system and say that you must take it as it is, without omissions or additions, then AD&D is one of the more ludicrous choices you could make. Nothing against Gary, there were reasons why that was his official stance, of course.

While the gist of the consensus is correct, I would like to raise a point:

Namely, that Gary in fact had a point. I am sure, the "company man" in him took that point and overstated it, for the reasons that were mentioned. The point I speak of:

OD&D is very, very, very free in many, many things. So free that it lead to incompatible gaming groups and quickly to RQ, Traveller or Tunnels & Trolls. With AD&D, the baseline was much stronger so that a straight line can be traced from 77 to the release of 3e.
OR, said differently: only via AD&D was it even thinkable to write computer games. For OD&D, the moment people wrote computer programs for it, they drifted the rules and gave life to new rulessets.

Also, the freedom of OD&D truly relied on ressourceful DMs that basically had to be wargamers or worldbuilders of such genius, that one can barely speak of a product. It was more like an inspirational tool for the gifted. We can see this very clearly by the failings of many OSR-disciples. Reductionism is strong in many of them, because they otherwise do not seem to be able to understand it. Also, all too many view it through the lenses of Basic D&D and AD&D or even 3rd Edition.

So, AD&D as a product as a structured set of ideas is much, much, much more stable than Arnesionian D&D ever could be. For better or worse.

I 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.

Speaking of "Arnesonian D&D", anyone here ever play the David Arneson reaction to Gygaxian D&D Adventures in Fantasy(1979)? I've never seen it for sale, but always been curious about it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;951439And yeah, most adult gamers who were playing D&D, not just in Minneapolis, where I was at the time, but in other places, read that little screed of Gary's and said, "That's nice, Cupcake."

Its bemusing on another level as the Dragon commentary contradicts the actual notes in the AD&D DMG. Did Gary forget that he wrote "Change stuff!" in there? Guess so. ahem.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951477http://dmdavid.com/tag/basic-and-advanced-why-gary-gygax-claimed-advanced-dungeons-dragons-was-a-different-game/

Um... what idiot couldnt see that they were not the same game? They use different mechanics? Basic/BX cleaves closest to OD&D which also obviously isnt the same game as AD&D.

They are though both created from the same basis and underlaying concepts and mechanics. Akin to how Battlesip:Galaxies is obviously neither Battleship nor HeroScape. But uses elements from both. Or more aptly the original Arkham Horror compared to the new one.

People wanted rules for everything.
People wanted organized play run RAW.
People wanted one way to run D&D.
Gary gave it to them, and some people have never forgiven him for it.

Did Gary go back and forth between "Company Man Gary" and "GM Gary"? Sure, he was inconsistent, and it seems at times annoyed with those who wanted everything spelled out as well as those who then nitpicked about individual rulings.

Some of those articles could get a tad snarky. I imagined Gary thinking "You dumb sons o' bitches couldn't make your own campaigns and run them, you wanted a body of rules you follow 100%, never having to make a GM decision, well jackasses you got it, so shut the fuck up and play the rules as is for fuck's sake!"

Also the fight between Arneson and Gygax probably had a lot to do with it as well, the more different the games were, the less legal standing Arneson had to get cash from AD&D.  He did, but not much.

I also wonder if Gary wasn't making "Company Man Gary" a little bit of a persona on purpose.  That was always some of the fun of the "Gary Jackson" character from KoDT, parodying "Company Man Gary".

Of course detractors aren't ever interested in anything other than quote mining in their eternal quest to prove AD&D was everything wrong with gaming and everything Gary ever said was wrong.

Arminius is also right in that most of the "unusable rules" reputation is vastly overblown.  They are called that by people that never actually tried to use them, they just heard it on the internet.  Except for grappling rules maybe. :D  That is one thing I liked about 2nd Edition.

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.

I didn't play any form of advanced until 2E (though I had the 1E books--the heaviness scared the shit out of me).:-)

Quote from: CRKrueger;951616Of course detractors aren't ever interested in anything other than quote mining in their eternal quest to prove AD&D was everything wrong with gaming and everything Gary ever said was wrong.

AD&D never tickled my fancy, I'll admit that (though I used a lot of it as a reference or inspiration for other stuff). But I'm wondering how much Gygax himself liked it. I think the article Tristram Evans shared does point to the logic behind the development of the system and EGG's promulgation of 'THIS is D&D, and other things aren't (really)." It looks more business-oriented than anything else. You take the financials and bickering away and I wonder whether BECMI would not have been the definitive edition of the game, had they decided to commit to it alone, perhaps porting over some of the AD&D ideas. Surely they could've cobbled together a "tournament edition" for that system, as well?

Nice summary, CR.

Personally, I get tired of hearing opinions on the whole Arneson vs Gygax lawsuit from people who weren't even born yet.  I gave a deposition for the suit, don't try to tell me what it was about.

And no, I won't talk about it.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951555Speaking of "Arnesonian D&D", anyone here ever play the David Arneson reaction to Gygaxian D&D Adventures in Fantasy(1979)? I've never seen it for sale, but always been curious about it.

I owned a copy at one point.  I'm not sure it was really playable.  The system was all over the place.  The combat table cross referenced animal types as attack types to give a percentage that was modified by other factors, so you'd have bear verses snake +10 from the rear and such-like.  There was discussion in the rules of the parts that were being left to supplements.  I wonder if the guy I loaned it to still has it.

Never got why people gave Gary shit over what he said as a business man versus what he said as a guy.  If my job was at TSR and AD&D was our bread and butter, I'd be hawking it till the cows came home and tell you that it was the best game since the dawn of time and that all other games were inferior.  When I got home I'd go back to playing whatever the hell I wanted to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;951616Of course detractors aren't ever interested in anything other than quote mining in their eternal quest to prove AD&D was everything wrong with gaming and everything Gary ever said was wrong.

No need to 'quote mine' there's pages and pages of his silly rants in Dragon. He even put some of them in the DMG.

I think it is fine to point to his own words to criticize him for often being full of shit. Always good to have some kickback against the cult of Gygax.

Like a lot of designers he would have been better off if he let his best work like Shrine of Kuo-Toa and Vault of the Drow speak for him instead of spouting off.

Quote from: RunningLaser;951695Never got why people gave Gary shit over what he said as a business man versus what he said as a guy.  If my job was at TSR and AD&D was our bread and butter, I'd be hawking it till the cows came home and tell you that it was the best game since the dawn of time and that all other games were inferior.  When I got home I'd go back to playing whatever the hell I wanted to.

Way back in 1975 or 1976 somebody wrote in an amateur magazine... maybe "Alarms & Excursions" but I couldn't swear to it ... that "Dungeons & Dragons is too important to leave to Gary Gygax."

Which, besides being quite literally the most fatuous thing I have ever heard in my life, is proof that people bitching about what Gary did goes back a long time.

Quote from: RunningLaser;951695Never got why people gave Gary shit over what he said as a business man versus what he said as a guy.

Because adults are usually held accountable for what they say and there are nerds to this day who treat everything Gygax said as Holy Writ? Just visit Dragonsfoot sometime.

Not sure why anyone would need to be held accountable if he's dead and it's regarding a game he hasn't owned in 30+ years anyway. If you're going to get worked up over hypocrisy, there are hypocrites out there that actually have an effect on your life. As opposed to the best way to pretend to be an elf with a magic sword.

I'm not a player of D&D, there's too much of every iteration of the system that just rubs me the wrong way, so my interest in it tends to be merely academic. As such, I don't have any personal investment in the behaviour, public or private, of Gygax except as a curiosity. But after years of the various third party accounts of the history of Gygax-era TSR, what I think is that he was a creative, generous man who was never suited to running the huge business D&D became (thats not saying that his ousting was anything short of a backstab). He was also, like most of us here on the forum, capable of being acerbic and petty in his dealings with pretentious fanboys.

I think Arneson doesn't receive enough credit overall in his role in the creation of the hobby, but at the same time I think there is a tendency to overblow his role in creating D&D as a commercial product. I don't think he or Gygax were necessarily in the wrong, or either totally right in regards to the lawsuit, but I think more than anything its a typical example of the cancerous effect of business and commerce on creative relationships and creative people.

Quote from: Matt;951715Not sure why anyone would need to be held accountable if he's dead and it's regarding a game he hasn't owned in 30+ years anyway. If you're going to get worked up over hypocrisy, there are hypocrites out there that actually have an effect on your life. As opposed to the best way to pretend to be an elf with a magic sword.

To repeat: there are nerds to this day who treat everything Gygax said as Holy Writ. There are two forums commited to this way of thinking. He strongly encouraged rules lawyers with his pronouncements.

On balance this stupidity is minor compared to his other achievements but it is always good to remind people that he was a man, who often contradicted himself and was even clearly full of shit on occasion, just like anyone else.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951716I'm not a player of D&D, there's too much of every iteration of the system that just rubs me the wrong way, so my interest in it tends to be merely academic. As such, I don't have any personal investment in the behaviour, public or private, of Gygax except as a curiosity. But after years of the various third party accounts of the history of Gygax-era TSR, what I think is that he was a creative, generous man who was never suited to running the huge business D&D became (thats not saying that his ousting was anything short of a backstab). He was also, like most of us here on the forum, capable of being acerbic and petty in his dealings with pretentious fanboys.

I think Arneson doesn't receive enough credit overall in his role in the creation of the hobby, but at the same time I think there is a tendency to overblow his role in creating D&D as a commercial product. I don't think he or Gygax were necessarily in the wrong, or either totally right in regards to the lawsuit, but I think more than anything its a typical example of the cancerous effect of business and commerce on creative relationships and creative people.

The jump from "small struggling company" to "multi millions in sales" has killed many a company in many an industry over the years.  In "Ambush at Sheridan Springs" Jon Peterson chronicles the near-bacteriological growth of D&D sales from 1976 to 1981 or so.  That sort of explosive growth is hard to manage in any industry.  It's like the difference between owing a two-stall garage and repairing cars and owning half a dozed garages and spending all your time managing them.

Plus, of course, with TSR it's "A part time shoemaker, a tool and die maker's apprentice, and a CPA attempt to run a company," which sounds like the beginning of a joke.

Quote from: Voros;951717To repeat: there are nerds to this day who treat everything Gygax said as Holy Writ. There are two forums commited to this way of thinking. He strongly encouraged rules lawyers with his pronouncements.

On balance this stupidity is minor compared to his other achievements but it is always good to remind people that he was a man, who often contradicted himself and was even clearly full of shit on occasion, just like anyone else.

So quote (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?22566-Q-amp-A-with-Gary-Gygax/page70&p=639985&viewfull=1#post639985) them Gygax and see how they deal with it. I bet it's going to be fun.

Quote from: E.G.GygaxWhoa, and I have to think hard about those questions. Generally, I just DMed on the fly, so to speak, and didn't use the rules books except for random encounters, monster stats, and treasure.

when hand-to-hand fighting occurred I usually did that seat-of-the-pants rules--asking what the character was doing and deciding on the chance for success based on the circumstances.

I did not use psionics, generally ignored weapons vs. armor type and weapon speed.

When an opponent was helpless I always allowed an immediate kill if of lower level; otherwise a successful hit killed, a "miss" doing double damage anyway.

That's about all I can think of

Cheers,
Gary

With thanks to DMDavid.com which pointed me to the quote and link in question.

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 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/features/14604-Inside-Lost-1980s-Dungeons-Dragons-Movie-Gary-Gygax-Loved) Gygax talked about forever.

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

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.

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.

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

Except for Holmes.

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?

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).

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: S'mon;951863IME "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.

For sure, many many people were introduced to D&D by B/X or the Red Box and carried what they learned about the mechanics into their 'Advanced' games. I remember playing 'AD&D' for years and one day actually reading the 1e DMG combat section and realizing it had a bunch of clumsy rules we never used.

Quote from: Voros;951865I have no idea what 'Gygaxian' mode of play means and doubt I want to know.

I described it just above: Referee plus some players (without miniature wargaming campaign as centre of attention) vs. the Twin Cities setup within a wargaming club.

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.

Er... B and AD&D came out in the same year. But AD&D was not complete untill nearly 2 years later.

Quote from: Settembrini;951870I described it just above: Referee plus some players (without miniature wargaming campaign as centre of attention) vs. the Twin Cities setup within a wargaming club.

You DO realize you're responding to somebody whose main schtick is to go into threads about old school gaming and act "too kewl for old school," don't you?

My schtick is hurting your precious feelings apparently. Grow up.

I played and enjoyed 'old school' D&D. My favourite edition is B/X or BECMI. Just because my nose isn't buried in Gygax's asshole doesn't mean I don't like 'old school' D&D.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;951439I think the easiest way to think of it would be that Gary had a "gaming hat" and a "company man hat", and that when he was speaking "officially" of course he'd plug AD&D "as it is."

There were a number of forces behind AD&D, but the need of uniformity for tournaments was definitely one of them.  And in that era there was a HUGE demand for competitive D&D tournaments with prizes.

And yeah, most adult gamers who were playing D&D, not just in Minneapolis, where I was at the time, but in other places, read that little screed of Gary's and said, "That's nice, Cupcake."

Well, cupcake wasn't the word we used, another beginning with an earlier letter in the alphabet.  The "company man" Gygax was a major detriment to gaining adherents in my day (late 70's early 80s) and circle, the screeds against other gaming systems and ideas the "company man" went on just drove us to them and we certainly stopped buying new TSR product.  We got the idea of "official tournaments" yah great, but to denigrate other mechanics and games, with straw man arguments and pedantic nonsense didn't do TSR any good.  They were fun reads though, everyone loves a rant especially when written in high Gygaxian.

Quote from: Xanther;951952Well, cupcake wasn't the word we used, another beginning with an earlier letter in the alphabet.  The "company man" Gygax was a major detriment to gaining adherents in my day (late 70's early 80s) and circle, the screeds against other gaming systems and ideas the "company man" went on just drove us to them and we certainly stopped buying new TSR product.  We got the idea of "official tournaments" yah great, but to denigrate other mechanics and games, with straw man arguments and pedantic nonsense didn't do TSR any good.  They were fun reads though, everyone loves a rant especially when written in high Gygaxian.

Sadly, that seemed the general perception of my generation; Gygax was a pompous embittered ass.

It wasnt until much later that a more full perception of him arose. But at the same time, its worth noting, this image was entirely Gygax's fault. The "Company Man Gary" was a failure at any sort of customer relations, basic etiquette and maturity, and a continuously botched Charisma roll.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951954Sadly, that seemed the general perception of my generation; Gygax was a pompous embittered ass.

It wasnt until much later that a more full perception of him arose. But at the same time, its worth noting, this image was entirely Gygax's fault. The "Company Man Gary" was a failure at any sort of customer relations, basic etiquette and maturity, and a continuously botched Charisma roll.

Let's see how cool you are when you have to deal with the Blumes and Lorraine Williams. :D

Quote from: Settembrini;951870I described it just above: Referee plus some players (without miniature wargaming campaign as centre of attention) vs. the Twin Cities setup within a wargaming club.

Got it thanks, I'm just sick of the use of Gygax as an adjective for everything, but that actually makes sense.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;951935You DO realize you're responding to somebody whose main schtick is to go into threads about old school gaming and act "too kewl for old school," don't you?

I do not know Voros, therefore I assumed a benign conversation.
I just tried to make my point more clear in case I was unclear before. I have not seen a good refutation of my point, actually I am not sure Voros understood my point. His Avatar makes me slightly suspicious of a case of gaming hipsterdom.

Back to that original point: When Gygax was being the company man in promoting AD&D, there is a kernel of truth in all he says because at first, OD&D was very free-wheeling and the game we know know is ONE road travelled starting from that set of concepts, and for lack of better words I call it the AD&D road.

Many other roads could have (and have) been followed that ended up either as oxbow lakes of individual groups and clubs and some quickly became utterly different things such as RQ, T&T or Trav.

To sum it up: I cut Gary a lot of slack. The only people I feel have a right to be have a negative opinion on EGG are people like the Blumes or his first wife. People who had direct interactions with him, and surely he was no more a saint than any of us.

Back in 2007, during the fledgling days of this here forum, we sort of had the consensus that Gary was doing cocaine during his Hollywood times, even some hints of hanging out at the Playboy mansion were given. Was this ever substantiated? Or an embellishment that I took for real, but was ultimately bogus?

'Cause a coke-head under monetary pressure might write more asinine editorials towards 'the masses' than a cleaner version of the very same person towards his fans.

Quote from: CRKrueger;951956Let's see how cool you are when you have to deal with the Blumes and Lorraine Williams. :D

According to Peterson it was Gygax who made financial promises to the Blumes he couldn't keep. The internerd narrative blaming the Blumes and Williams for everything is tired.

Quote from: Settembrini;951958His Avatar makes me slightly suspicious of a case of gaming hipsterdom.

:eek::D

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951954Sadly, that seemed the general perception of my generation; Gygax was a pompous embittered ass.

It wasnt until much later that a more full perception of him arose. But at the same time, its worth noting, this image was entirely Gygax's fault. The "Company Man Gary" was a failure at any sort of customer relations, basic etiquette and maturity, and a continuously botched Charisma roll.

Well Gary, like most of us, used Charisma as a dump stat. :)

Quote from: Voros;951959According to Peterson it was Gygax who made financial promises to the Blumes he couldn't keep. The internerd narrative blaming the Blumes and Williams for everything is tired.

As is the tired jihad against Gary and the "Cult of Gygax" the "OSR Taliban" and the other bullshit that doesn't exist.

Ah found the piece that let me think it was sorta real:
http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-tangled-cultural-roots-of-dungeons-dragons

also the old cocaine thread:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?12864-A-quot-Widespread-quot-Rumor-About-Gygax/page2

@voros: I love DCO, but not as much as to make it part of my online identity. That is reserved for wargames;-)

Quote from: Settembrini;951958Back in 2007, during the fledgling days of this here forum, we sort of had the consensus that Gary was doing cocaine during his Hollywood times, even some hints of hanging out at the Playboy mansion were given. Was this ever substantiated? Or an embellishment that I took for real, but was ultimately bogus?

Dwalt reports that in his book on D&D. Believe family and friends have subsquently claimed it to be untrue. But Dwalt seems to be a legit enough of a writer that he wouldn't have included it without some solid sourcing.

Never understood why this was such a controversial story, sometimes gamers can be a surprisingly puritan lot.

Perhaps some fear it brings Gygax's business acumen into doubt. But anyone who has read the excerpts of the film script that he was peddling back then already has lots of reason to doubt his business acumen.

Quote from: Xanther;951962Well Gary, like most of us, used Charisma as a dump stat. :)

we need the rolling laugh smiley back

Quote from: CRKrueger;951963As is the tired jihad against Gary and the "Cult of Gygax" the "OSR Taliban" and the other bullshit that doesn't exist.

Never visited Dragonsfoot or K&K then? Two forums is a lot for something that doesn't exist. RPGNet is not the only forum with an oppressively enforced groupthink.

Almost all of us on this thread would be banned there for what we've said: including Gronan!

Quote from: Settembrini;951965@voros: I love DCO, but not as much as to make it part of my online identity. That is reserved for wargames;-)

Just wanted to go with a good monster pic. Shoulda gone with something from 1e MM to maintain my OSR cred.

I am a big fan of Gene Weigel. If there is a Gygax puritan, he's the real deal. Still I do take everything he say with a grain of salt.
T.Foster too, love them both.

QuoteJust wanted to go with a good monster pic. Shoulda gone with something from 1e MM to maintain my OSR cred.

Well, it woulda been more conventional. If you individualize with something recent and hip, you might be a hipster! You can't have it both, either hip or square. And yes, there is no way to win in pop culture.

Quote from: Settembrini;951971I am a big fan of Gene Weigel. If there is a Gygax puritan, he's the real deal. Still I do take everything he say with a grain of salt.
T.Foster too, love them both.

I only know Weigel from some thread when a former TSR employee showed up to defend Zeb Cook from the edition warriors and exposed Gene as making false claims based on his late association with Gygax.

So, I guess my original question would be answered, "EGG most often played 'something else." At least, I think it is. Hard to say at this point.

Quote from: cranebump;951975So, I guess my original question would be answered, "EGG most often played 'something else." At least, I think it is. Hard to say at this point.

I refrained from answering as we have a couple posters here who actually played with Gary, but from all I've read (I think even from him) his home game was never really by-the-AD&D-book.  Which to me doesn't mean anything one way or another; especially as I've read his home games were great fun.

Quote from: Xanther;951976...especially as I've read his home games were great fun.

This was my impression, as well.

If you do a read through of OD&D with Greyhawk supplement and then B/X back to back, B/X is everything that OD&D is, just well written, organized, and edited.

Quote from: Voros;951717To repeat: there are nerds to this day who treat everything Gygax said as Holy Writ. There are two forums commited to this way of thinking. He strongly encouraged rules lawyers with his pronouncements.

On balance this stupidity is minor compared to his other achievements but it is always good to remind people that he was a man, who often contradicted himself and was even clearly full of shit on occasion, just like anyone else.

Quote from: Voros;951705Because adults are usually held accountable for what they say and there are nerds to this day who treat everything Gygax said as Holy Writ? Just visit Dragonsfoot sometime.

To clarify, is this all because you are worried that there might be people around here who somehow* doesn't know that Gygax was a flawed individual? Or that the people from DF or K&K are all also here and will be hurt/enlightened/taken down a peg?

I am aware that I'm probably outspoken here in my belief that the constant focus on TBP has been detrimental to this place's overall development, however, I think I'd find agreement with others that this place is more than just a place where people come to vent their dissatisfaction with other boards.

As for Gygax himself, I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why does he have to be either hero or villain, why can't he just be a real person? He found he could earn a living doing something he loved and ran with it straight into uncharted territory. Isn't that story good enough without trying to put a white or black cowboy hat on top of it?


*and as corollary, would have to be the one D&D gamer active enough to visit a forum like this who hasn't read Playing at the World

"But it is always good to remind people that he was a man..." That's putting a black hat on him? And I praised his work, the stuff that matters. Everything else has been a matter of record or his own words. It's only the typical rush of apologists that derails these threads. 'Hey, stop replying to our posts!! What's the matter with you man?!'

Quote from: Voros;951865I 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.

Yes, the Holmes Bluebook was a re-write of the Original Dungeons & Dragons white book set. Bx was condensed, refined, and an improved version of the basic game where some of the earlier ambiguities were omitted, and additional sections added to streamline play. It only included advancement for characters level 1-3 though. In 1977,  I bought this brand new, even before getting the white bookset. I bought the Judges Guild Ready-Ref sheets for $2.99. Then A few weeks later I bought the Holmes D&D Basic Boxed Set, for $8. I would have bought a White Bookset at that time, but didn't have the other $4 to spend, and had to wait until early summer to pickup the white bookset. Bluebook, B1, and the Ready Ref sheets kept me quite busy until the summer time. BXD&D had instructions for how to build Dungeons, and B1 was a great example to work from, but there was really no Wilderness rules at all in Bluebook. Judges Guild really helped out with learning how to build a wilderness campaign with the Campaign Hexagon System, which originally retailed for $2.50, and was published in the latter half of 1977 (at least that's when I first remembered seeing it, and bought it right away too, As the Wilderlands of High Fantasy was significantly more expensive at $7.95).

Eight times AD&D is mentioned in Bluebook BXD&D as an upsell, Four times within the first eight pages. Random House was the distributor for Holmes Bluebook D&D. The Fifth time it is mentioned in the combat tables, stating that "Full tables are given in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. The tables below are deliberately simplified, but will take some practice to use them with facility." The Sixth and Seventh time AD&D is mentioned is in the monster rules with "...and many more can be found in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons." and concerning Dragons: "of the dozen different kinds found in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons only four will be covered here." The last time AD&D is mentioned is in the treasure tables on page thirty-four. "There are many more magical and wondrous items described in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, and the Dungeon Master can easily invent treasure items of his own."

J. Eric Holmes was the Editor, so he was the one that included the upsell notes in Bx, probably as requested by Gary though.

Now here's the thing about AD&D back then. It wasn't published yet. AD&D Monster Manual wasn't released until just before Christmas in 1977. It was another whole year(1978) before the AD&D Player's Handbook was released. and then another year later (1979) before the DMG was released. AD&D back then was what we call vaporware today. There were no pre-announced publication dates. We found out about AD&D actual release dates via ads in Dragon Magazine, usually only a month or two before the Holidays. This is why I bought the White Bookset in the summer of 77, so I would have the most complete set of rules available (at that time).

In 1978 everyone was still playing 0D&D or BXD&D, at least until around Christmas or so, and it would really be the end of 1979 or early 1980 before most gamers first saw the DMG, and finally the full version of AD&D had been released.

While I bought the AD&D books, I ran 0D&D games with many of the monsters from AD&D MM, and some (actually, ...just a few) of the best rules of AD&D PHB cherry picked out to suit my home campaign. AD&D seemed to start a lot of arguments where none had existed before, and that was in the rigid interpretation of the rules to the point of ridiculousness on the part of some DM's. The D&D supplements and the AD&D books also promoted a power level creep upward in the game, where the players competed to see what   better treasures and magic and rewards they could get. With the 1 GP spent equals 1 EXP earned model players were unduly rewarded for looting the enemy whenever possible, and further encouraged the players to do whatever was necessary to obtain gold. Actual Roleplaying for Exp opportunities were trampled by the jun horde rushing to find the next bandit camp or dragon lair to loot, and that pushed the game into a direction as a GM, that I wasn't (Even back then) much interested in seeing it go.

One other book that I'll mention that I picked up very early on that had a great influence on my games was The Complete Warlock from Balboa Game Company in 1978. I never really did use the spellpoint system in it for my D&D games, but we definitely did convert/steal a bunch of spells out of that book, and adopted the Thieves character class from there as well, as our gaming group really liked having more options when it came to doing nefarious things in game...

Quote from: Willie the Duck;951986*and as corollary, would have to be the one D&D gamer active enough to visit a forum like this who hasn't read Playing at the World[/SIZE]

Actually most of my references to Peterson are to his work outside of Playing at the World as that book doesn't include anything after the first release of OD&D.

And ironically, last I saw the Pundit himself had not read Playing at the World yet. I think he suspected Peterson was some kind of Swinish hipster.

Quote from: GameDaddy;952022Yes, the Holmes Bluebook was a re-write of the Original Dungeons & Dragons[/I...

Thanks for those details GameDaddy. I don't recall hearing about The Complete Warlock before, I'm going to seek it out.

Quote from: GameDaddy;952022.....

One other book that I'll mention that I picked up very early on that had a great influence on my games was The Complete Warlock from Balboa Game Company in 1978. I never really did use the spellpoint system in it for my D&D games, but we definitely did convert/steal a bunch of spells out of that book, and adopted the Thieves character class from there as well, as our gaming group really liked having more options when it came to doing nefarious things in game...

Great summary!  So true on the AD&D release.  We started using the MM right away but with OD&D rules, in some groups it was with B/X rules.  With you on power creep that started with the PHB.  Unearthed Arcana, IMHO, put it over the top.  People think it began with 3e, but it really began with 1e.

Forgot that spell points, instead of fire-and-forget go back that far, even before TFT I figure (in TFT your "HP" are spell points).  Always wanted The Complete Warlock but spent my hard earned dollars on the White Box instead.

Quote from: Xanther;952119With you on power creep that started with the PHB.  Unearthed Arcana, IMHO, put it over the top.  People think it began with 3e, but it really began with 1e.

That's disingenious or at least ahistorical. The whole OSR, for better or worse, decidedly went back to OD&D especially for that reason. So at least since ten years it's generally accepted wisdom that 1e is the first step into a direction that has been plumbed thoroughly way into Pathfinder. A conscious effort to go back to the place before AD&D1E was made, and they (were) called (it) OSR.

Disclosure: Now, myself, I have been there and back. And I like 1e the very best.

Quote from: Settembrini;952151That's disingenious or at least ahistorical.

Not really.  The 3e splatbook era took it to it's logical conclusion.  Certainly there are those in the day who thought there was power creep in 1e, and even today.  

QuoteThe whole OSR, for better or worse, decidedly went back to OD&D especially for that reason. So at least since ten years it's generally accepted wisdom that 1e is the first step into a direction that has been plumbed thoroughly way into Pathfinder. A conscious effort to go back to the place before AD&D1E was made, and they (were) called (it) OSR.  

I guess I didn't get the memo.  I thought OSRIC was one of the beginning OSR projects, before the term OSR even had much parlance.  OSRIC is decidedly 1e.  The reason I think most OSR is OD&D and B/X is those are just cleaner and easier rule sets to reskin.  1e is still a bear of a rule set, if you count everything in the DMG as a potential rule, also there is a much larger volume of great material in the MM and magic items in the DMG so it is hard for a clone to compete with that.

QuoteDisclosure: Now, myself, I have been there and back. And I like 1e the very best.

In hindsight I think Rules Compendium was the best of the D&D's.  B/X made the mistake to my teenage mind of being too directed to kids and not giving you the complete game when Basic came out.  OD&D, although started with it, was a mess of organization and not new user friendly, took me a long time to realize you really didn't need Chainmail or Outdoor Survival despite the references.  I still like the art design esthetic of OD&D though, very zine.  So back in '78, my pivotal game choice year, AD&D was the clear choice.  Played the shit out of AD&D, mostly by the book to the extent could understand it.  Never did grasp initiative nuances until DMPrata spelled it out.

Quote from: Xanther;952162I guess I didn't get the memo.  I thought OSRIC was one of the beginning OSR projects, before the term OSR even had much parlance.  OSRIC is decidedly 1e.  The reason I think most OSR is OD&D and B/X is those are just cleaner and easier rule sets to reskin.  1e is still a bear of a rule set, if you count everything in the DMG as a potential rule, also there is a much larger volume of great material in the MM and magic items in the DMG so it is hard for a clone to compete with that.

No there were AD&D holdouts without interuption since its publication. The earliest widespread publications were Hackmaster and these micronized yellow spine books, both leading up to OSRIC.

The OSR as a "movement" came after BECAUSE 1e was seen as part of the problem by some. Sean/Calithena was one big mover in that direction, he was one of the first to organize and collect the smattering of blog entries like Philotomy, Erol Outs fan-shrines and some quiet parts of Dragonsfoot (even there, it was much more BECMI than white box) and the likes around 2005-7. Fight On! being the most tangible product of this re-discovery of OD&D in the forum/blogger online universe.
Before that, proper OD&D was basically only cared for by collectors (at the Acaeum, frex).

EDIT 2 ADD:
btw, before the OSR we now know, the hipster thing to say was "got me my Rules Cyclopedia, it's all D&D I'll ever need, the best book evar!"
Before the retroclones, the RC was one of the poster childs.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951818My 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.

You, me and about 90% of everyone who played AD&D back then. Even those who didn't buy the new PHB still used some of the charts printed in the sample from Dragon Magazine (equipment, surprise, initiative, etc).

I never understood the hysterics over mixing editions ("Oh noes! The Basic troll has 6+3 HD and the AD&D one had 6+6!"). It's not like it required any great effort to take a thief (for example) from Holmes to BX to 1E or 2E or a mixture of all of the above.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951954Sadly, that seemed the general perception of my generation; Gygax was a pompous embittered ass.

It wasnt until much later that a more full perception of him arose. But at the same time, its worth noting, this image was entirely Gygax's fault. The "Company Man Gary" was a failure at any sort of customer relations, basic etiquette and maturity, and a continuously botched Charisma roll.

To be fair, he received far worse than he ever dished out. I remember an ur-neckbeard many years ago, stating loudly in the local comics/gaming shop (in front of a bunch of kids and a few parents) that Gygax was an "asshole" because wizards couldn't use swords when everyone knew Gandalf used one. There were countless newsletters and such echoing this and similar sentiments which said more about those trying to Whitta on Gary Gygax than they did about the old man himself.

I think the biggest impediment to mixing AD&D with white box (+supplements) or the various flavors of basic is the hit dice, no?

Monsters in advanced: d8
MU: d4
Thief: d6
Cleric: d8 (also ranger but starting with 2d8)
Fighter: d10

Monster in Basic: d6
MU, Thief: d4
Cleric: d6 (and no rangers)
Fighter: d8

This was rather cruel to players during the transition period since the MM came out first and I had no hint that PC dice would also change. But even after the PHB and DMG were out, the HD inflation may have been a subtle source of discontent leading to fudging because higher variances would more radically divide the lucky and unlucky.

Quote from: Settembrini;952168...EDIT 2 ADD:
btw, before the OSR we now know, the hipster thing to say was "got me my Rules Cyclopedia, it's all D&D I'll ever need, the best book evar!"
Before the retroclones, the RC was one of the poster childs.

:) Yah it's kind of true.  I never did play by the RC, but got a copy nonetheless.  Recall how this all percolated up at Dragonsfoot, was there from near the beginning, don't want to relive the what's in and what's out of the OSR.  To me it should be a broad inclusive term that applies to a style of gaming, not a specific rule set.  Inclusion IMHO is key if we want our hobby to live on and expand.   Sean/Calithena was one of my favorite posters (and I think mod at some point) at DF.

Quote from: Arminius;952220...This was rather cruel to players during the transition period since the MM came out first and I had no hint that PC dice would also change. But even after the PHB and DMG were out, the HD inflation may have been a subtle source of discontent leading to fudging because higher variances would more radically divide the lucky and unlucky.

Believe me, the HD of a monster was the last thing that made a campaign cruel.  

On the second point it soon became a house rule that on HP rolls 1's became 2's and many a group played with max HP at first level.  It worked both ways, you got monsters with really low HP based on unlucky rolls.

True, but a monster's HP are something a player only has to deal with when they have the monster in front of them. A bad HP roll lives on until you die. Thus your house rule. I'm not sure there's any other game that (RAW) gave players as little control over their HP, and the bigger variances compound the issue--compensated somewhat by CON bonuses introduced in Greyhawk. In practice I think house rules have been very common in this area.

Quote from: Xanther;952222...many a group played with max HP at first level...

This is the new standard in 5e. Took long enough.

Quote from: Arminius;952224In practice I think house rules have been very common in this area.

And that adds some more to the kernel of truth that the company man was basing his pro-AD&D editorials on.

Huh? Not sure what you mean there.

Quote from: Xanther;952119Great summary!  So true on the AD&D release.  We started using the MM right away but with OD&D rules, in some groups it was with B/X rules.  With you on power creep that started with the PHB.  Unearthed Arcana, IMHO, put it over the top.  People think it began with 3e, but it really began with 1e.

Actually it started with Dragon. Alot of the UA stuff first showed up in Dragon. Chevalier, Barbarian, think the Acrobat too. And pretty sure a chunk of the spells and items. Players were introducing power creep. So again with AD&D and UA they were getting what they asked for/demanded. Though while strong. The new stuff in UA wasnt too horribly over powered yet aside from some notable examples.

Quote from: Omega;952234Actually it started with Dragon. Alot of the UA stuff first showed up in Dragon. Chevalier, Barbarian, think the Acrobat too. And pretty sure a chunk of the spells and items. Players were introducing power creep. So again with AD&D and UA they were getting what they asked for/demanded. Though while strong. The new stuff in UA wasnt too horribly over powered yet aside from some notable examples.

Oh it certainly did show up in Dragon, that and much more.  The Anti-Paladin being a favorite.   It seems you couldn't get an issue of Dragon without a new class thrown in.  Yet these were clearly all unofficial.  UA made some official.  Players love power creep, WOTC had that one nailed.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951954Sadly, that seemed the general perception of my generation; Gygax was a pompous embittered ass.

It wasnt until much later that a more full perception of him arose

I started paying attention to EGG's forum postings a couple of years before he died. I can only go on the general tone of what I saw there: he seemed genuinely humble, and would not be drawn into bitterness online despite plenty of opportunity. His temperament aged well.

Yeah he seems to have mellowed with age. As hopefully we all will. Except for Kask, who seems to insist on being a jackass. :D

Quote from: Xanther;952252Oh it certainly did show up in Dragon, that and much more.  The Anti-Paladin being a favorite.   It seems you couldn't get an issue of Dragon without a new class thrown in.  Yet these were clearly all unofficial.  UA made some official.  Players love power creep, WOTC had that one nailed.

On top of that. Alot of stuff in UA (and Dragon of course) was player submitted.

Quote from: Omega;952365On top of that. Alot of stuff in UA (and Dragon of course) was player submitted.

And that too added into the mix.  In wargames, "variants" had been around for decades.  Almost every issue of Avalon Hill's "General" would have some variants, and other gaming magazines published them as well.

Then with stuff appearing in the Dragon... people wanted it to be "Official."  And they wanted it to be incorporated in the canonical text, and in many cases they wanted to be paid for it.  Not paid as in "two pages in the Dragon gets you $20," but paid a percentage of D&D sales.

Really, it was fucking astounding.

And if I were Gary when somebody actually wrote "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax," I would have been TEN TIMES AS MUCH OF AN ASSHOLE AS GARY WAS.

Quote from: Arminius;952224True, but a monster's HP are something a player only has to deal with when they have the monster in front of them. A bad HP roll lives on until you die. Thus your house rule. I'm not sure there's any other game that (RAW) gave players as little control over their HP, and the bigger variances compound the issue--compensated somewhat by CON bonuses introduced in Greyhawk. In practice I think house rules have been very common in this area.

Always ran games this way, with 1st level characters automatically having max hp. Almost as far back as I can remember, almost all the way to the beginning, certainly by 1979 or so, this was a houserule for our games. Once I figured out the natural game world with the built-in encounter tables was inherently hostile enough to low level players that rolling hp was irrelevant, I stopped having players roll up their first level hp, and automatically had them start out with max hp.

For the record in our campaigns the survival rate for low level characters was that about 25% of them would make it to 5th level.

I usually had all the players roll up three or four characters at the beginning of a new campaign, as most of those (and once in awhile all of those characters) would not survive.

5th level was kind of a milestone. If your character somehow made it to fifth level, there was a good chance that the character would go on to become a real hero. Will say the 1e AD&D games really took the edge off of the insta-death aspect with far fewer death saving throws being required when playing AD&D as compared to 0D&D...

Quote from: GameDaddy;952391Always ran games this way, with 1st level characters automatically having max hp. Almost as far back as I can remember, almost all the way to the beginning, certainly by 1979 or so, this was a houserule for our games. Once I figured out the natural game world with the built-in encounter tables was inherently hostile enough to low level players that rolling hp was irrelevant, I stopped having players roll up their first level hp, and automatically had them start out with max hp.

For the record in our campaigns the survival rate for low level characters was that about 25% of them would make it to 5th level.

I usually had all the players roll up three or four characters at the beginning of a new campaign, as most of those (and once in awhile all of those characters) would not survive.

5th level was kind of a milestone. If your character somehow made it to fifth level, there was a good chance that the character would go on to become a real hero. Will say the 1e AD&D games really took the edge off of the insta-death aspect with far fewer death saving throws being required when playing AD&D as compared to 0D&D...

We found to that the characters which did survive in AD&D were the ones with really good stats.  My only wizard that survived past 5th level had like a 18, 17, and two 16's IIRC.  All natural rolled in the open, under roll 7 drop 1 arrange as you please.  We also did psionics.  He was the only psionic character we ever had with whopping Animal Telepathy and something else we never used because we didn't get the rules.  I attribute Animal Telepathy and carrying a lot of treats to his early survival, although those psionics got him killed (later raised) in The Barrier Peaks.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952384And if I were Gary when somebody actually wrote "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax," I would have been TEN TIMES AS MUCH OF AN ASSHOLE AS GARY WAS.

Would have been? :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;952448Would have been? :D

A touch, a touch, I do confess't.

Actually, I wish it were possible to publish a good selection of the letters TSR got; some of them were unbelievable.  It's one thing to say "We made up another magic system that we've had fun with and we think other people might have fun too," and another to say "Your magic system sucks, here is one you should use instead.  Put it in and pay us 10% of cover price per copy sold."

I'm not exaggerating.  I wish I were.

Chirine and I have talked about how five or six years in the game industry was enough to drive us out of the hobby for 15 years.  Thank Crom we weren't making any money, because if we had been we'd have had to persist.

Really, if I had to put up with the shit at TSR for as long as the first generation did, I'd make Gary Gygax sound like your Crom-damned favorite maiden aunt.

Quote from: Voros;952226This is the new standard in 5e. Took long enough.

   It was locked in as standard in 3E, was introduced as an official option in the 2E Complete Fighter's Handbook, and was more or less official by mid-2E (the Domains of Dread character creation section).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952466Really, if I had to put up with the shit at TSR for as long as the first generation did, I'd make Gary Gygax sound like your Crom-damned favorite maiden aunt.

If one reads the DF threads with David 'Zeb' Cook and others you definitely see some goofy shit that echoes the letters pages in Dragon. People asking why a thrown axe does so many dice of damage vs. an arrow, etc. An almost clinical amount of imaginative failure. Mind-numbing stuff that you can see Gygax and others suffering through in the letters and advice columns of Dragon. Even on podcasts I'm stunned at the patience the older designers show for stupid and pointless questions. Skills honed from years of convention attendance I would hazard to guess.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952466I'm not exaggerating. I wish I were.

You are not exaggerating. I've been told by the TSR staff I knew back then the same thing and that persisted into the Loraine era apparently. And not just the "give me money" sorts. Some of the letters were... odd to say the least. One or two were apparently downright disturbing. Not sure if it was Gary or someone else who said "D&D should come with a psych test..."

Quote from: Omega;952533"D&D should come with a psych test..."

They should call it the Purdue Exam :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952466Chirine and I have talked about how five or six years in the game industry was enough to drive us out of the hobby for 15 years.  Thank Crom we weren't making any money, because if we had been we'd have had to persist.

True, true. I finally had a good time at a game convention - a good time without any issues or problems - for the first time in decades when we went to Ohio. I keep getting asked to appear as A Special Guest at conventions, and I keep having to tell folks why I don't jump up and down with glee at the notion.

There were, and still are, a lot of bat-shit crazies out there, and I make damn sure to limit my exposure to them.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;952677I finally had a good time at a game convention - a good time without any issues or problems - for the first time in decades when we went to Ohio.

Which Ohio con?

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;952708Which Ohio con?

Cincy Con, two weeks ago. Had a great time, got some great miniatures, talked to a lot of people. Couldn't ask for better, really! :)

Quote from: chirine ba kal;952677True, true. I finally had a good time at a game convention - a good time without any issues or problems - for the first time in decades when we went to Ohio.

I retire tomorrow (Yay!) and I'm thinking about next year's Con of the North.  Paul Stormberg has the TOE for the first EVER Tractics battle ever done at Gen Con.

4 Panzer III with the short 50, 3 T-34 76s... a few buildings and trees.  In Micro Armor scale (which David T has a TON of) it would fit in one printer paper box.  And the board is 4 by 6 feet.

It's genuinely tempting, because it's a fun scenario but it doesn't require a ton and a quarter of lift capacity.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952728I retire tomorrow

Congrats!

Thenkew.  I worked as a programmer long after I stopped enjoying it just for this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952384And if I were Gary when somebody actually wrote "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax," I would have been TEN TIMES AS MUCH OF AN ASSHOLE AS GARY WAS.

I agree. You would have been! :)

Me too.

I'm sure I would have gone batshit on those MADD asshats and half the letters to Dragon would have been answered with "eat my asshole you pimply bitches!"

But the funny thing is it's true.

So many great discoveries of art and invention are "too important" to be left ONLY to their creators.

That's why it was so cool that Ken St. Andre's first response to D&D was "this shit is fun" and his second response was "but I can do better!" and that led to a merry train of clowns, dreamers and assorted fine authors to go forth and make their own RPG.

Alas, there are far more clowns and based on the asinine letters TSR did print in the Dragon, I can only imagine WTF they left out.

In middle school, my response to most of the letters was "WTF is wrong with these people? Who possibly gives a shit about this rules wankery?"

Quote from: Voros;952226This is the new standard in 5e. Took long enough.

For who? Fucking around with how HP were rolled, or not rolled was absolutely basic gamer conversation in middle school.

Everybody had their own schtick for HP. Max HP for first level was idiot common - it only got weird with Rangers. Many GMs had "pick the average OR roll". Other GMs (like myself) had Max HP Every Level (with the caveat there was no bitching about the game being hard).

Congrats to WotC for catching up to the 6th Grade Class of 1979.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;952677True, true. I finally had a good time at a game convention - a good time without any issues or problems - for the first time in decades when we went to Ohio.

That is excellent news! Hope it starts a trend!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952744Thenkew.  I worked as a programmer long after I stopped enjoying it just for this.

Enjoy retirement. I hope you have cool stuff planned. Hopefully you can develop on your own programming projects and enjoy it again without the work stress. Amazing how "work" can suck the joy out of good stuff.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;952710Cincy Con, two weeks ago. Had a great time, got some great miniatures, talked to a lot of people. Couldn't ask for better, really! :)

Cool, I'm in Columbus, so maybe I'll check it out some time. The only con I've ever done is Origins here in Columbus a few times.

Quote from: Spinachcat;952749I agree. You would have been! :)

Me too.

I'm sure I would have gone batshit on those MADD asshats and half the letters to Dragon would have been answered with "eat my asshole you pimply bitches!"

Very, VERY near the end of the line for "Akbar and Jeff's Traveling Tekumel Road Show," I had perfected my "One Breath Customer Response":

"WHAT DO YOU WANT?  FUCK YOU!  HERE'S YOUR SHIT!  FUCK YOU!  GIMME YOUR MONEY!  FUCK YOU!  HERE'S YOUR CHANGE!  FUCK YOU!  HAVE A NICE DAY!  FUCK YOU!  WHO'S NEXT?"

A lot of our fellow vendors laughed.  Nobody disagreed.  (I saved it for after hours.  I may be bad tempered but I'm not stupid.)

Quote from: Spinachcat;952749But the funny thing is it's true.

So many great discoveries of art and invention are "too important" to be left ONLY to their creators.

That's why it was so cool that Ken St. Andre's first response to D&D was "this shit is fun" and his second response was "but I can do better!" and that led to a merry train of clowns, dreamers and assorted fine authors to go forth and make their own RPG.

Agree completely.  That's why the correct answer is "make your own game."  This douchenozzle wanted Gary to turn D&D over to some ... I don't know what, committee or something.

Gary's response was "it's too important to leave to me or to you or to anybody."  I think he should have said "Too important to leave to me? Well, for $20 million it can be yours!"

It's a fucking commercial product.

Congratulations to Gronan. If I were still a drinker and under the insane delusion that what you'd want to do on your first night of retirement was facetime with a forumdweller, I'd buy you a drink.

Quote from: Spinachcat;952749For who? Fucking around with how HP were rolled, or not rolled was absolutely basic gamer conversation in middle school.

Everybody had their own schtick for HP. Max HP for first level was idiot common - it only got weird with Rangers. Many GMs had "pick the average OR roll". Other GMs (like myself) had Max HP Every Level (with the caveat there was no bitching about the game being hard).

Congrats to WotC for catching up to the 6th Grade Class of 1979.

To be fair, they never had to codify it before, because it was basic gamer conversation in middle school. In my mind, it's less, 'Congrats to WotC for catching up to the 6th Grade Class of 1979,' and more, 'Condolences to WotC for having to put into the rules what we've been successfully dealing with since 6th Grade Class of 1979 and before.'

Quote from: Willie the Duck;952831To be fair, they never had to codify it before, because it was basic gamer conversation in middle school. In my mind, it's less, 'Congrats to WotC for catching up to the 6th Grade Class of 1979,' and more, 'Condolences to WotC for having to put into the rules what we've been successfully dealing with since 6th Grade Class of 1979 and before.'

I thought it was condolences to WOTC for having to cater to whinny bitches who cant stand their precious snowflakes being endangered.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952761"WHAT DO YOU WANT?  FUCK YOU!  HERE'S YOUR SHIT!  FUCK YOU!  GIMME YOUR MONEY!  FUCK YOU!  HERE'S YOUR CHANGE!  FUCK YOU!  HAVE A NICE DAY!  FUCK YOU!  WHO'S NEXT?"

Green Ronin used to be like that at during GenCon and apparently other cons. Except it was pretty much  "Fuck off and die. We are too good to sell you our games.".

And it wasnt just a few either apparently.

But yeah. I know a few convention artists who get a weeeee bit burned out from fans after a day or two. Others just laugh it off. Where the hell do they get that much energy?

Quote from: Omega;952835I thought it was condolences to WOTC for having to cater to whinny bitches who cant stand their precious snowflakes being endangered.

I'm focusing on the fact that they felt the need to codify common house-rules--because apparently everything must be standardized, and not whether such rules are snowflaky something or other.

Quote from: Spinachcat;952749lowns and based on the asinine letters TSR did print in the Dragon, I can only imagine WTF they left out.

In middle school, my response to most of the letters was "WTF is wrong with these people? Who possibly gives a shit about this rules wankery?"

This continues to be my response to many of the electrons spilled across the internerds in helpless nerd rage.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;952849I'm focusing on the fact that they felt the need to codify common house-rules--because apparently everything must be standardized, and not whether such rules are snowflaky something or other.

Have you read the 5e core books? They are easily the most flexible and modular, 'do what works for you' books ever put out by WoTC or perhaps for D&D in general. That is the clearest 'old school' influence on them.

Oh, no, I totally agree. 5e also isn't the first to include max hp at 1st level. Nor the first to include houserules that reflect what people had been doing (I think it was 1e AD&D that first included alternate stat rolling methods, although perhaps a Dragon Mag I don't remember slipped in there first).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;952728I retire tomorrow (Yay!)

Congratulations, Glorious General!
Does that mean a certain book is more likely to become available soon, in addition to your online presence being growing? The latter goes without saying, but one can hope about the former, as well!

Quote from: Settembrini;952168EDIT 2 ADD:
btw, before the OSR we now know, the hipster thing to say was "got me my Rules Cyclopedia, it's all D&D I'll ever need, the best book evar!"

Hmm; I was a hipster and I didn't even know it!

Quote from: RPGPundit;953788Hmm; I was a hipster and I didn't even know it!

Yeah, not something to really take pride in. On the other hand RC is pretty much the bee's knees.

Yeah, my point is that while some people may have liked the RC for 'hipster' reasons, for a lot of people it was just the best rule-set around for a really long time.

Come on, Pundit, you already admitted being a rightwing hipster, don't go back on it;)!

Hopefully they reprint it in hardcover sometime so the collector scum can suck it. Wish I hadn't gave away my copy back in my early twenties when I gave away most of my RPG books. I thought I had kept it but looked around a couple of years ago and came up empty. At least I kept my CoC 5th Edition, Night's Dark Terror, etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit;953788Hmm; I was a hipster and I didn't even know it!

Well, well, let's say you were just 'hip', as you were authentically playing and promoting the RC up and down the internet. Your old campaign logs are still on Pandius, I think.
Good things are downward compatible and not everything hipsters like is bad. It's just that they like it for the wrong reasons:-)

Example: Mason Jars. Useful and cheap. But weird when made into a 'thing'.

Quote from: AsenRG;954100Come on, Pundit, you already admitted being a rightwing hipster, don't go back on it;)!

I probably do qualify as a hipster by various standards. But it's entirely unintentional, which either disqualifies me or makes me the most legit kind of hipster ever, depending on who you ask.

Quote from: RPGPundit;954933I probably do qualify as a hipster by various standards. But it's entirely unintentional, which either disqualifies me or makes me the most legit kind of hipster ever, depending on who you ask.

I'd go with "the most legit kind";).
And yeah, the trick is to not care whether hipsters like the same things as you. Always worked for me, too:D!

Okay, what is this, 2003? Are hipsters (and/or being mistaken for one) still really what you're worried about?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;955042Okay, what is this, 2003? Are hipsters (and/or being mistaken for one) still really what you're worried about?

I think he was going for Ironic Sarcasm.

...

You've probably never heard of it. *pushes nonexistent glasses up the bridge of his nose*

Quote from: GameDaddy;952022Yes, the Holmes Bluebook was a re-write of the Original Dungeons & Dragons white book set.

Yep. You might even say an "edit" rather than a re-write. Much of the text is taken verbatim from the original D&D books, and Holmes even said "I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as 'the basic set.'” Holmes is firmly in the original D&D family.

QuoteEight times AD&D is mentioned in Bluebook BXD&D as an upsell...J. Eric Holmes was the Editor, so he was the one that included the upsell notes in Bx, probably as requested by Gary though.

Almost certainly. We've been able to compare the original Holmes manuscript (http://zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2013/11/at-long-last.html) to the published version, and the AD&D references were added. They aren't in the original manuscript.

Quote from: Settembrini;952168The OSR as a "movement" came after BECAUSE 1e was seen as part of the problem by some. Sean/Calithena was one big mover in that direction, he was one of the first to organize and collect the smattering of blog entries like Philotomy, Erol Outs fan-shrines and some quiet parts of Dragonsfoot (even there, it was much more BECMI than white box) and the likes around 2005-7. Fight On! being the most tangible product of this re-discovery of OD&D in the forum/blogger online universe.
Before that, proper OD&D was basically only cared for by collectors (at the Acaeum, frex).

FWIW, I wouldn't say I considered AD&D a problem. I like AD&D (and still run it, sometimes, as well as running my original D&D game). I like the idea of using original D&D as a sort of D&D "blank slate" or basic foundation on which to build my own D&D, maybe not following the path already taken with AD&D and later editions.

The earliest rumblings which became the OSR were probably Basic Fantasy RPG, Castles & Crusades, and OSRIC. Basic Fantasy is more classic D&D (i.e. B/X) based. Word on C&C was that it was going to be a kind of AD&D clone, but as it was being developed it became more and more apparent that this wasn't really the case, and dissatisfaction with its direction gave rise to OSRIC.

Definitely seems to me that original D&D became the banner most of the "OSR" picked up and ran with, though.

Quote from: Settembrini;952151That's disingenious or at least ahistorical. The whole OSR, for better or worse, decidedly went back to OD&D especially for that reason.

This is not accurate. It more accurate to say that many of those who prompt, published, or play a classic edition of D&D focuses on OD&D. But AD&D has it adherents as well. If I had to guess which classic edition is the most popular I would peg Moldavy/Cook B/X as the one with the most variants, clones, and near clones. B/X D&D seems to be the sweet spot for many who label themselves as part of the OSR.
 

Quote from: Settembrini;952151So at least since ten years it's generally accepted wisdom that 1e is the first step into a direction that has been plumbed thoroughly way into Pathfinder. A conscious effort to go back to the place before AD&D1E was made, and they (were) called (it) OSR.

I respect Gygax's work on OD&D more than AD&D because OD&D was developed more through actual play while AD&D was designed. However with the caveat that overall the advice and writing style of AD&D is top notch in my opinion, where there are problems it is in the actual mechanics. Many mechanics reek of "Now this sounds like a good idea" and obviously were not used in actual play. Somebody that was borne out by the anecdotes both then and later in the 2000s about how Gygax runs AD&D/D&D.

Quote from: Settembrini;952168NThe OSR as a "movement" came after BECAUSE 1e was seen as part of the problem by some.

OSR became a movement when the OSR storefront was put together on Lulu which made it obvious a lot of people were following the example that OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, and other retro-clones set. The term OSR was a after the fact label used as a shorthand to the group of people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions D&D.

And as I stated earlier if I had to crown "most popular classic edition for the OSR". It would be B/X D&D. It it is that way more because of technical reasons. First the original are straightforward in their content and well organized for the time. Second and more important nearly all of B/X is covered by something that can be found and extrapolated from the d20 SRD. This not the situation with AD&D or BECMI or OD&D+supplements.

QuoteSean/Calithena was one big mover in that direction, he was one of the first to organize and collect the smattering of blog entries like Philotomy, Erol Outs fan-shrines and some quiet parts of Dragonsfoot (even there, it was much more BECMI than white box) and the likes around 2005-7. Fight On! being the most tangible product of this re-discovery of OD&D in the forum/blogger online universe.

I concur that Calithena was instrumental in conveying the sense there was a larger community.

The OSR Storefront
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20100303144112/http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fGroupID=4672

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;955492Definitely seems to me that original D&D became the banner most of the "OSR" picked up and ran with, though.

My observation is that OD&D core book only is not what most people consider to classic D&D. It took the addition of the Greyhawk supplement turn OD&D into the form that most people recognized as classic D&D. Of all the classic editions Moldavy/Cook B/X D&D is the most straightforward presentation it only major quirk is race as class. B/X D&D is basically a cleaned up and re-edited version of OD&D + Supplements. In that regard is function well as a ur-D&D, a set of rules that common among most of the different editions of D&D.

Aside from race as class vs. pick class and then race, choice, most retro-clones then to use the B/X ur D&D as a starting point.

Now out of the early retro-clone Swords and Wizardy Core Rules pretty did what B/X D&D did. Matt Finch took OD&D and the supplement condensed and re-edited them into a compact one book set of rules. Because it was also 100% open content as well, many used that as a template for their own take on classic D&D.

Quote from: estar;955496This is not accurate. It more accurate to say that many of those who prompt, published, or play a classic edition of D&D focuses on OD&D. But AD&D has it adherents as well. If I had to guess which classic edition is the most popular I would peg Moldavy/Cook B/X as the one with the most variants, clones, and near clones. B/X D&D seems to be the sweet spot for many who label themselves as part of the OSR.
 

Bolded part is where we are in total agreement. Now I know of course that many people love AD&D1e, me inlcuded. But the impetus at least for Calithena, and the opening of the OSRIC/Hackmaster/C&C-Old Boys-"front" was the rediscovery of OD&D by the younger generations. Also the reason for avoiding DF at some point and opening up the odd74-boards.

It provided a clean slate, if only in the Bloggerverse, were everybody who had not followed DF or KnK etc. the last years could hang his hat.
A fresh start, a fresh look at D&D. And as you say, B/X is the baseline were everybody can meet. Because B/X-fandom had an unbroken line with people who never stopped playing, the BECMI people just being cousins and the 1e and even most 2e people had started with Moldvay or Mentzer.

Good pointer to the opening of the OSR storefront. I cannot fully recall the first "commercial" DIY success that led to so many jumping on the bandwagon. Was it Fight On! with its sales numbers or LotfP who showed some bucks could be earned? I am fully aware that Goodman Games and Necromancer made already nice sales with their offerings years before that. But there was a certain point at which the DIY model of the Forge was appropriated by some OSR folks, when would you say was that and who was the first breakout hit?
Now I know Goodman and Necromancer are also Mom & Pop enterprises, but the one-guy-in-a-basement publishers, that's what I am talking about.

QuoteYou might even say an "edit" rather than a re-write. Much of the text is taken verbatim from the original D&D books, and Holmes even said "I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as 'the basic set.'” Holmes is firmly in the original D&D family.

I am not entirely convinced. Holmes is already following the Gygaxian road towards AD&D. As is the Greyhawk supplement.

It might be splitting hairs, but the whole compatibility-angle of campaigns among each other, and many Gary-isms from Greyhawk, they seem to be all there. Ultimately Holmes is of course OD&D, I am just stressing the point that EGG had a vision for D&D that was different from many others wo read the 74 edition. And Holmes is a step towards that vision of compatible campaigns.

Does that make sense to you what I want to convey here?

Quote from: estar;955499It took the addition of the Greyhawk supplement turn OD&D into the form that most people recognized as classic D&D. Of all the classic editions Moldavy/Cook B/X D&D is the most straightforward presentation it only major quirk is race as class. B/X D&D is basically a cleaned up and re-edited version of OD&D + Supplements.

I think OD&D + Supplements is more like AD&D than like B/X. But I suppose it's subjective.

QuoteAside from race as class vs. pick class and then race, choice, most retro-clones then to use the B/X ur D&D as a starting point.

I'm not really tuned into the OSR and the varieties of clones, these days. I just remember a *lot* of buzz around OD&D, back in the earlier period (a memory which could also be colored by my involvement). It's quite possible that B/X became the favored basis for clones; you're probably better informed than I am on that.

QuoteMatt Finch took OD&D and the supplement condensed and re-edited them into a compact one book set of rules. Because it was also 100% open content as well, many used that as a template for their own take on classic D&D.

Yeah, I was directly (although minimally) involved in that. We're both in Houston, and at the time Matt and I were part of the same gaming group, trading off as referee for our respective OD&D games. He encouraged me to develop my house rules into a S&W variant (this was before S&W was out), and asked me about developing White Box, but I'm too lazy (although I did offer feedback on the White Box manuscript as it was being developed). When it comes down to it, I'm more into playing than publishing. :)

Quote from: Settembrini;955504I am not entirely convinced. Holmes is already following the Gygaxian road towards AD&D. As is the Greyhawk supplement.

It might be splitting hairs, but the whole compatibility-angle of campaigns among each other, and many Gary-isms from Greyhawk, they seem to be all there. Ultimately Holmes is of course OD&D, I am just stressing the point that EGG had a vision for D&D that was different from many others wo read the 74 edition. And Holmes is a step towards that vision of compatible campaigns.

Does that make sense to you what I want to convey here?

Sure, I think we're in agreement. All I'm saying the is that Holmes rules, themselves, are definitely OD&D. But there is certainly a "Gygaxian D&D" tone and movement towards AD&D.

FWIW, I used to draw a more decisive line between OD&D and AD&D, but I've come to see that line as increasingly blurred and artificial. It's there, but it's kinda fuzzy (especially if considering OD&D + Supplements, rather than just the OD&D LBBs).

Well, some people (in the OSR) have seen that line as hard one, and once they decided it was a hard line, they made it one.
And you sir, provided some of the fundamentalist essays, I'd say;-)

Thief class being stupid and d6 omnibus weapon damage are two of the elements some people made hard stances on.

Quote from: Settembrini;955502Bolded part is where we are in total agreement. Now I know of course that many people love AD&D1e, me inlcuded. But the impetus at least for Calithena, and the opening of the OSRIC/Hackmaster/C&C-Old Boys-"front" was the rediscovery of OD&D by the younger generations. Also the reason for avoiding DF at some point and opening up the odd74-boards.

Out all of the classic D&D editions OD&D was the one had the biggest hurdle to overcome. The bloggers and forum poster were of a big help with a growing number of actual play account demonstrating various technique to use the original rules. While a classic OD&D, Gygax wrote it for the existing community of wargame in mind. So if you don't know or share that community assumption it can be a head scratchier especially compared to later RPG.

If anything one of the most valuable things that the OSR has done is bring all that to light to allow people to learn and develop their own take.

Quote from: Settembrini;955502A fresh start, a fresh look at D&D. And as you say, B/X is the baseline were everybody can meet. Because B/X-fandom had an unbroken line with people who never stopped playing, the BECMI people just being cousins and the 1e and even most 2e people had started with Moldvay or Mentzer.

While that is important what key to the OSR being what it is is the open game license, digital publishing, and print on demand. All three combine to allow folks down to the one man outfit, like me, to realize their project and more importantly get it to a wider audience in a form (books, etc) that is the same as the industry side of RPGs.

All the quirks, ifs, and buts of the OSR explained by the ease of publishing and use of open content mixed in with the temperments of the individuals involved.

For example with D&D 5e, Mike Mearls and the rest of the then Wizard team had to think carefully about how they are going to present the project, compromise on certain aspects to satisfy various interests within Wizards and Hasbro. While the financials of Wizards allows products to spread far and wide with a high production value, ultimately they are a result of a team vision rather than a individual author's vision.

With the OSR, open content and ease of publishing meant that the author's vision of classic D&D could be presented unvarnished. Some bad, most meh, and some very very good. The problem of the OSR has been "how do I get my stuff out there." Which is why OSRIC, Basic Fantasy and other early retro-clones, adventures, supplements, and blogs are so important. Each release served as a how-to template for the next guy to realize his idea. At some point a critical mass was reached and the information became readily available. My guess it around the time the OSR Storefront appeared on Lulu. Note I am NOT saying the OSR Storefront was THE critical lynchpin. It was important but the blogs and forums were important as well.

I wrote about this on my blog including this piot.
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-short-history-of-old-school.html

And thanks to guys like Guy Fullerton and stuff like the Internet archives we don' t have guess with memories. We look this stuff and see what was released and when.

Hoard and Hordes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar9Wm_5gI_1TdGlyZHpwRHFoU2pEMng0NkhqTlJEYmc)

Quote from: Settembrini;955502Good pointer to the opening of the OSR storefront. I cannot fully recall the first "commercial" DIY success that led to so many jumping on the bandwagon. Was it Fight On! with its sales numbers or LotfP who showed some bucks could be earned?

It was numerous people blogging and posting that provided the tipping. Raggi is important as being on one of the first to make it his actual job instead of something that grew over time. Fight On! was important for providing a community center to a large section of the OSR.

Quote from: Settembrini;955502I am fully aware that Goodman Games and Necromancer made already nice sales with their offerings years before that. But there was a certain point at which the DIY model of the Forge was appropriated by some OSR folks, when would you say was that and who was the first breakout hit? Now I know Goodman and Necromancer are also Mom & Pop enterprises, but the one-guy-in-a-basement publishers, that's what I am talking about.

Matt Finch and Swords & Wizardry and Dan Proctor and Labyrinth Lord. Of the two Dan Proctor is the first to leverage his success into a actual publishing company. Matt Finch was and still more of an author while Dan is more business oriented.

OSRIC was always a community effort. But Jon Hershberger and Black Blades with the Knights and Knaves crew to get OSRIC in print. Also Jon is a stand up guy who has helped me and other OSR author with getting their books to the conventions.

After Matt and Dan, the pattern has been a bunch of decent releases, with one or two standouts every year resulting in major sales for those authors and a corresponding audience. For example Raggi, ZakS, Kevin Crawford, Dyson and his maps, etc, etc.

Again Ease of Publishing, a love of Classic D&D, and Open Content are what make the OSR the OSR.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;955510FWIW, I used to draw a more decisive line between OD&D and AD&D, but I've come to see that line as increasingly blurred and artificial. It's there, but it's kinda fuzzy (especially if considering OD&D + Supplements, rather than just the OD&D LBBs).

For my part over the recent years I am come to realize the benefits of evolution through actual play versus design by fiat. After reading Playing at the World, Hawk and Moor, the number anecdotes by the people involved, this is the realization I come too. What work best for RPGs are those mechanics that been shown to be useful in multiple sessions over multiple campaigns. Which is why I find myself enjoying OD&D more than AD&D. Of course there are some element of OD&D are clunky and poorly tested and there are some part of AD&D that were a result of actual play and continue to well time and time again. So it isn't totally a black and white line.

Another example that I am working on a update of the Majestic Wilderlands to reflect what I did since 2009. One thing I found that the Matt Finich's treasure tables in Swords & Wizardry are way too stingy for how I run my campaigns. The OD&D table likewise have issues that don't reflect how I like to give out treasure. Something I tested by coding both up in Inspiration Pad Pro and generating thousands of results.

So I created my own take and developing it through successive version by using Inspiration Pad Pro until I got results that reflected what I would have done from scratch. I will incorporate that into the new book but I will also explain the process so people can do it for themselves.

Quote from: Settembrini;955512Well, some people (in the OSR) have seen that line as hard one, and once they decided it was a hard line, they made it one.
And you sir, provided some of the fundamentalist essays, I'd say;-)

I've always presented stuff I wrote as my opinion, or stuff I think is cool/interesting/different/whatever. I'm not fundamentalist about it, though. It's a game. Can't speak for anyone who took anything I wrote as dogma.

QuoteThief class being stupid and d6 omnibus weapon damage are two of the elements some people made hard stances on.

I'm still not a big fan of the Thief as a class (although I did write up an alternative "white box style" Thief, at one point), but I'm not so much against it that I would never allow the class. There aren't any Thief classed PCs in my original D&D game, but there are in my AD&D game. (And there are "thief-like" PCs in my original D&D game -- it's just not their character class.)

And I still like using d6 as the basic die for hit dice and weapons in my original D&D game. But again, I don't think it's *that* critical (and don't use it in my AD&D game, obviously). It's just a preference. I like the symmetry of it, and the way it makes power levels easy to reason about.

Basically, I use my original D&D game to "do my own thing" with the game, while trying to keep it feeling like D&D. My AD&D game is a more traditional thing. But there's a lot of AD&D in my OD&D, and a lot of OD&D in my AD&D -- not so much in the precise rules, but in the rulings and the way I approach running the game.  It's probably more true for AD&D: you could say my experience with OD&D informs the way I run AD&D, even if the rules are a bit different. Hard to explain.

Quote from: Settembrini;952168Before that, proper OD&D was basically only cared for by collectors (at the Acaeum, frex).

Well, and those of us puttering around in obscurity playing the game the way we'd always played.  But I'm not any part of any old school 'Renaissance,' I'm just doing what I've always done, playing a silly-ass game.

Quote from: estar;955524Which is why I find myself enjoying OD&D more than AD&D.

I find it very difficult to list one as a clear favorite. I guess if I were forced to only ever run one of them, I'd pick OD&D. My OD&D game tends to spur my creativity and enthusiasm more, and I suppose it's more personal. But I love AD&D, too: to me (probably because of when/how I started playing), it's the de facto standard for "this is D&D." I want both experiences: my own D&D game with my own tweaks and preferences and quirks, and also the classic feel of running a party through the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief or crawling through the underdark to the Vault of the Drow with the 1e rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955571Well, and those of us puttering around in obscurity playing the game the way we'd always played.

Yes indeed, I did say exactly that upthread, but I would fathom there weren't too many people like you around. At least not visible on the net. What did A&E people play and talk about in the early noughts?

I think only nowadays can people fully realize the gift it is that the Mornards and Kasks and Gygaxes and so forth are/were long enough around to share their experiences. Looking forward to your book!

Talking about books: is the EGG biography any good? Anybody any opinions on that?

Quote from: estar;955522OSRIC was always a community effort. But Jon Hershberger and Black Blades with the Knights and Knaves crew to get OSRIC in print.

OSRIC was first available in PDF and on Lulu/POD. The Black Blade printings came a bit later, but they are things of beauty (far better than the Lulu POD versions, IMO). The Black Blade OSRIC book is kind of like a Rules Cyclopedia for 1e (but with better rules and presentation than the RC -- again, IMO). And it's inexpensive. One of the best deals in the "OSR," I think. Monsters of Myth is another often overlooked gem.

Quote from: Settembrini;955574Yes indeed, I did say exactly that upthread, but I would fathom there weren't too many people like you around. At least not visible on the net. What did A&E people play and talk about in the early noughts?

I think only nowadays can people fully realize the gift it is that the Mornards and Kasks and Gygaxes and so forth are/were long enough around to share their experiences. Looking forward to your book!

Talking about books: is the EGG biography any good? Anybody any opinions on that?

Kingdom of Imagination was pretty good but had one serious flaw.  In his later years (and both Derek White and I, among others, have direct experience of this) Gary's faith became very important to him again.  Whitwer's book has Gygax leaving his religion in a divorce-and-cocaine-fueled rampage and never talks about his refocusing on it in his later years.  Which may not matter to most people, but it is definitely part of his life.


And no, there weren't many of us, hence my deliberate use of the word "obscurity."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;955579Kingdom of Imagination was pretty good but had one serious flaw.  In his later years (and both Derek White and I, among others, have direct experience of this) Gary's faith became very important to him again.  Whitwer's book has Gygax leaving his religion in a divorce-and-cocaine-fueled rampage and never talks about his refocusing on it in his later years.  Which may not matter to most people, but it is definitely part of his life.


And no, there weren't many of us, hence my deliberate use of the word "obscurity."

Agreed. When I read the thing, I seriously thought I'd wasted my money. Scandal sells, my General.

Quote from: estar;955524What work best for RPGs are those mechanics that been shown to be useful in multiple sessions over multiple campaigns. Which is why I find myself enjoying OD&D more than AD&D. Of course there are some element of OD&D are clunky and poorly tested and there are some part of AD&D that were a result of actual play and continue to well time and time again. So it isn't totally a black and white line.

It's not only not a totally black and white line, it seems you've gotten it mostly backwards. The rules in the OD&D boxed set (Jan 1974) are generally very close to those in the so-called Dalluhn Manuscript (c. 1973), which appears to be based on the playtest manuscript Gary Gygax prepared either quickly after starting (or even, depending on the account you read, possibly before starting) the Greyhawk Castle campaign in late 1972. So while some elements (those inherited from Arneson - whatever they might be) may have had a couple years of playtesting behind them, most of it was freshly made up by Gary. It was all experimental and was in constant flux - there are major changes from the Dalluhn Manuscript to the published boxed set, and then a further set of equally major changes in Supplement I was released in 1975. The foundation of the game absolutely was not solid in this era - it was in very rapid and strong flux as various concepts were tested out in play and then dropped or modified, and new elements were added. The D&D set as published was just a snapshot of how the rules stood as of one particular moment (just as the Dalluhn Manuscript had been of a few months prior, and Supplement I was of a few months later).

Add in that people all over the country/world were able to read the same text in the OD&D rules and come to widely different interpretations of what it actually meant, and that there were so many holes in the published rules (some intentional, others presumably not) that every referee had to become, effectively, a co-author of the game. In retrospect, thanks to later editions and the work of folks like Judges Guild, it's possible to understand how the rules were supposed to work and what the intent of the game was, but the volume of letters and calls TSR got questioning the rules, and the number of APAzine articles written about them, show that at the time the situation was very different. Different people reading the same D&D rules could come away with interpretations as different as Tunnels & Trolls on the one hand and RuneQuest on the other.

By contrast, AD&D is the fruit of ~5 years of extremely heavy playtesting, both in-house and in what was, effectively, a worldwide "open beta" with the OD&D set. It takes those elements of OD&D that worked best (based on play and customer feedback), combines and clarifies them, modifies and rebalances those elements that proved not to work (or not to work as well as they should), and expands upon them with new material built upon that solid foundation. OD&D is a rough-draft towards a possible game - AD&D is that game, mature and complete. Sure there are some new rules in AD&D that were probably added late in the process and received little playtesting and kind of suck, like the unarmed combat system in the DMG or the revised psionics system, but it's utterly incorrect to act like OD&D was somehow better in that regard - it didn't have an unarmed combat system at all (which is why one had to be newly created for AD&D) and its psionics system was even worse (which is why it had to be revised for AD&D).

I totally get that there are reasons why people might prefer OD&D to AD&D - they like a simpler, less crunchy, system, or they like being the de facto co-author and want to be able to modify and expand the scope of and personalize the game in a way that AD&D - as a more mature and complete system - isn't as amenable to. And of course some people who'd been playing the game for 3 or 4 years and had developed all of their own house-rules and interpretations to fill in the gaps of OD&D didn't like the way AD&D filled in those same gaps and decided their version was better. All of those are totally reasonable and legitimate reasons for choosing to play OD&D over AD&D. But to claim that OD&D's rules are the solid result of extensive, rigorous playtesting and AD&D's are something that was hastily thrown together and untested is not only not true, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611It's not only not a totally black and white line, it seems you've gotten it mostly backwards. The rules in the OD&D boxed set (Jan 1974) are generally very close to those in the so-called Dalluhn Manuscript (c. 1973), which appears to be based on the playtest manuscript Gary Gygax prepared either quickly after starting (or even, depending on the account you read, possibly before starting) the Greyhawk Castle campaign in late 1972. So while some elements (those inherited from Arneson - whatever they might be) may have had a couple years of playtesting behind them, most of it was freshly made up by Gary.

What crack of your ass did you pull THAT out of?

Says the guy who was, you know, actually THERE.

There are some factual statements in that little recitatieve, but the conclusions require more jumping than an Olympic hurdles race.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611It's not only not a totally black and white line, it seems you've gotten it mostly backwards. The rules in the OD&D boxed set (Jan 1974) are generally very close to those in the so-called Dalluhn Manuscript (c. 1973), which appears to be based on the playtest manuscript Gary Gygax prepared either quickly after starting (or even, depending on the account you read, possibly before starting) the Greyhawk Castle campaign in late 1972. So while some elements (those inherited from Arneson - whatever they might be) may have had a couple years of playtesting behind them, most of it was freshly made up by Gary. It was all experimental and was in constant flux - there are major changes from the Dalluhn Manuscript to the published boxed set, and then a further set of equally major changes in Supplement I was released in 1975. The foundation of the game absolutely was not solid in this era - it was in very rapid and strong flux as various concepts were tested out in play and then dropped or modified, and new elements were added. The D&D set as published was just a snapshot of how the rules stood as of one particular moment (just as the Dalluhn Manuscript had been of a few months prior, and Supplement I was of a few months later).

I figured the bolded part was implied by my post. Anyway I concur that the OD&D was snapshot in time. And yes there was a day where Gygax sat down, designed and wrote down rules before he initiated the Greyhawk campaign. But from there to the published boxed it was being twisted and hammered on over an over again by Gygax and players over the course of two years. My opinion is that style of development is allowed the core concepts of D&D to persist to this date despite multiple editions.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611By contrast, AD&D is the fruit of ~5 years of extremely heavy playtesting, both in-house and in what was, effectively, a worldwide "open beta" with the OD&D set.

Really? Because I haven't read a single anecdote or account of Gygax using the initiative system as outlined in the DMG, the Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules, or several other problematic sections of AD&D. The ones I read all talk about the deluge of phone calls, questions, and rule calls from thousands playing. That the development of AD&D was meant to address that by creating a definitive ruleset for D&D.

Quote from: T. Foster;955611But to claim that OD&D's rules are the solid result of extensive, rigorous playtesting and AD&D's are something that was hastily thrown together and untested is not only not true, it's pretty much the opposite of the truth.

I never claimed that OD&D was playtested as the term is understood today. Rather the process was one of starting from a relatively basic set of rules and modifying it over time due to the demands of the campaigns and what the players were and were not doing.

I was reading Playing at the World, Hawk and Moor, and the various archives and post of antecdotes posted by Gygax and other folks back in the day. There was something familiar about the accounts of how OD&D and AD&D were developed. Then I realized that it I encountered this in my job as head programmer.

See back in the days, the idea to deal with complex software is from the top down. Find the overall view and break it down into its parts until you get to the level of code. Well after several decades of this and several spectacular failures people started trying alternative. One approach that has worked was to start off with a basic framework of the software. Something that does a few functions well. Then listen to your users and chart your development path on what they use or don't use. Your initial design includes numerous small scale tests so you if make a mistake that alters some existing feature it is flagged when the developer complies. Anything you add you build in new test to verity it work as expected. You keeping repeating this cycle growing the software over time. Because you have the small scale tests you can safely alter the design if you didn't account for something.

The problem of course that this works best for new projects. Trying to write all the tests for an existing project can be problematic for one's budget.

Anyway, start small and grow in response to what the users actually do describe OD&D's development to the tee. Top down is fits exactly what happened to AD&D's development. Of course nothing operates in a vacuum. So yeah a lot of AD&D mechanics was informed by the feedback gotten from people playing OD&D. The sin, if you can call it that, is that Gygax didn't take the initial manuscript and use it to run some campaigns the way he did with OD&D.

Finally understand, I am in the process of writing down the rules I been using in my campaigns since I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands in 2009. This is something that most hobbyists don't engage in. For this I will standby my opinion that OD&D development path is the superior approach. But for the regular hobbyist (player or referee) the strengths of both version greatly outweigh any flaws they may have. And the differences between the two when it comes to making a character or running a campaign is a matter of inches. For that situation I say pick the one you like and run the character or campaign you got in your head. Both will work.

From his own statements it seems clear that Gygax, and other designers, introduced rules that they didn't even use themselves at the table (eg. weapon speed).

Some were likely suggested or requested by players. Or experiments that while not of use personally, were deemed interesting enough to add in in case someone else had a use.