Quote from: JRT;734478Actually Gary has gone on record as saying alignments were more of a tool to help guide young players, particularly his kids.  And it's not something he would have put in the game if he was creating it today.

I frankly don't believe you, because it appears both in CHAINMAIL and in Dave Arneson's pre-Gyagx manuscripts.

Quote from: Doughdee222;734414Geez... there were so many. Even a young teenager could see there were big problems.

I'll agree with estar: alignments were stupid.

Hit Points. The fact that a high level character could fall 60 feet, onto spikes, then ten seconds later get up and start fighting with no penalties was so ridiculous.

Hrrrmm? What? You mean you never ruled that falling doubles the amount of damage taken every 10' you fall uninterrupted... kind of looks like this:

Fall Distance          Damage
============================
10'                       1d6
20'                       2d6
30'                       4d6
40'                       8d6
50'                      16d6
60'                      32d6

Doing it this way, a 60' fall (onto a hard surface, of course) will do an average of 96 points of damage. One would need to be 10th level or more, just to survive that fall.

Nope, didn't use that rule. My friends and I stuck with the 1d6/10 feet rule, with some bonus or negative depending on what was at the bottom.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;734489

BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-HUMOR-BEEP

God damn I love that gif

Quote from: Piestrio;734685God damn I love that gif

Another one I found, same source...



(Note to mods: not trying to derail with image spam - this is the last time I'll post one in this thread.)

I've always been a tinkerer so no OD&D that "bothered me" was ever a problem longer than it took me to houserule it. But I could see how RAW players would go mad with OD&D.

As for alignments, I have been quite happy with Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic and it adds to my game experience. I don't use the AD&D nine though except in Planescape.

Quote from: Old Geezer;734578I frankly don't believe you, because it appears both in CHAINMAIL and in Dave Arneson's pre-Gyagx manuscripts.

I was not saying Gary created it as a tool for kids, but rather he came to see it as a burden over time.  (I'll have to look up the Kids quote since he said it in some interview, although I think that was in the context of hommlet).

My point was Gygax soured on alignment as a general rule.  I'll post the exact quote once ENWorld is back up, but he is quoted as saying he stopped using alignment personally, and he certainly kept it out of his future games.  

(I had it last night, but ENWorld is now pointing to the Network Solutions page--damn, somebody didn't renew/reset the DNS).

My whole point was Gary changed his mind after reflecting on things--the wisdom of age and experience and all that.  (Whoever posted the falling damage revision that's another example).

Quote from: JRT;734478Actually Gary has gone on record as saying alignments were more of a tool to help guide young players, particularly his kids.  And it's not something he would have put in the game if he was creating it today.

To me from reading Chainmail, First Fantasy Campaign, and OD&D alignment represented factions Law and Chaos with Neutral the unaligned. It makes sense and useful in that context.

But the later expansion as a definition of one's personality and moral compass makes me go meh. I will say the AD&D system of alignment is elegant and makes the game more approachable. The whole system of punishment mechanics for alignment is smacks of the referee acting as a dick. The only place that idea works is for Paladins, Druids and Clerics as those classes revolve around a specific code or set of values. Even then just define the specific code in your campaign and use that rather debate what lawful and what is good.

Now that it's back up here's the specifc quotes.  I know that Gary also avoided alignment systems like D&D did, preferring to either have a ethos for clergy, or a system of repute, with Good and Evil being defined more or less by character type and deeds.

QuoteI don't use any alignments in my game campaigns nowadays because the concept caused so much misunderstanding and confusion; but actions speak louder than words, and as clearly as words on character sheets

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?121380-Gary-Gygax-Q-amp-A-Part-VIII/page2&p=2046299&viewfull=1#post2046299

QuoteAllow me to answer in this manner:

When players began to announce their character's alignment to other participants I shuddered. I suggested that such information was not for broadcast, that the PCs might not actually think of themselves as categorized thus, and the alignment categories were meant more to guide the player in playing his character in the game.

As for alignment language, I assumed that it was akin to Latin in regard to use. Clerics would be fluent in their use of their alignment language, the devout and well-educated nearly as able, and at the middle and lower end of the spectrum only rudimentary communications could be managed.

Somehow I supposed that DMs would arrive at similar conclusions unaided.

The Lejendary Adventure game uses Repute, Dark Repute, and Disrepute as pubicaly known measures of the characters' reputation. These generally equate to honorable, shady, and wicked.

Quote from: Kiero;735016Fortunately in the real world, there are lots of random and non-random options that aren't as shitty as "3d6 in order".

Here you have it folks: 3d6 in order was put in the original game rules just to piss off Kiero forty years later.

Dave and Gary. Duo of cold-blooded time-traveling bastards.

Books 1-3: "Here's some shit we thought would be fun."

Supplement I: "That shit? It's ludicrous! Replace it with this shit."

People who came in with AD&D and bought the 'system' line hook and sinker might think there was a more nefarious design, but I don't buy it.

Quote from: Benoist;735033Here you have it folks: 3d6 in order was put in the original game rules just to piss off Kiero forty years later.

Dave and Gary. Duo of cold-blooded time-traveling bastards.

Damn I knew Dave and Gary were geniuses but that just elevates them to Godhood.

Quote from: Benoist;735033Here you have it folks: 3d6 in order was put in the original game rules just to piss off Kiero forty years later.

Dave and Gary. Duo of cold-blooded time-traveling bastards.

That's laughable, because it would imply there was anything like consistent design intent in original D&D. Which there is little evidence of. I mean seriously, this is the game where rules were often determined by who touched them last, with all sorts of wildly varying philosophies behind them.

Quote from: Kiero;735150That's laughable, because it would imply there was anything like consistent design intent in original D&D. Which there is little evidence of. I mean seriously, this is the game where rules were often determined by who touched them last, with all sorts of wildly varying philosophies behind them.

Actually there is consistent design, it was developed through actual responding to the what the player were interested in and what they attempted to do.

The canonical example is the cleric being developed by Dave in response to the players wanting to play a Van Helsing type to counter Dave Fant's Vampire character.

It is an valid approach to game design neither better or worse then sitting down and deliberately creating a system.

OD&D was developed incrementally by Gary and Dave, then complied by Gary, playtested in the traditional manner and then released.

The main problem of the original rulebook is the fact that it was targeted towards the miniature wargaming community that Dave and Gary were part of. Many of the assumptions of that community were left unstated. But Dungeons & Dragons quickly expanded beyond that.

Quote from: Kiero;735150That's laughable, because it would imply there was anything like consistent design intent in original D&D. Which there is little evidence of. I mean seriously, this is the game where rules were often determined by who touched them last, with all sorts of wildly varying philosophies behind them.

Shows just how much you know.