Part 1: Early D&D was rubbish
Part 2: Mid-period D&D wasnt great
Part 3: Fourth edition D&D is terrible

Is the dagger thing true ?

Blood will flow.

He has some points I agree with, some I don't. I found D&D to be an "enough" game so to speak. Nothing spectacular, just something that's often enough for fun. But the area it excels in is very, very narrow indeed. Of course, I got to D&D from the backdoor, starting with Warhammer, so I have more of a pendant to agree with him because of that anyway.

Then again, he strayed a bit close to badwrongfun territory. Though his concerns are usually the ones voiced by the more sane of D&D detractors. Except the "kiddie stuff" one, that one's blergh.

Who is this guy, and why should we care about him more than any other person on the internet?

I understand the guy do not like abstract/simplistic/ultra-focused/indie games, which seems the case with early D&D, and this kind of explain his points.

But the dagger part, if true, is unexcusable.

What is the "dagger part" I don't feel like annoying my wife with several videos when I can't find my headphones.

Seen this guy's videos before, though more of the ones that focus on medieval weaponry, armor, and tactics. I don't know who he is, but his videos are quite entertaining.

Quote from: silva;652158But the dagger part, if true, is unexcusable.

It's true. Page 20 of Holmes Basic D&D.

Quote from: K PetersonIt's true. Page 20 of Holmes Basic D&D.

Thats awful.

Thanks, btw.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;652160What is the "dagger part" I don't feel like annoying my wife with several videos when I can't find my headphones.

Ok, fair. The guy cites that, in an early D&D version he have, there are different weapons to pick but all do the same damage (1d6). And, as the dagger attacks faster than any other,  there is no point in getting other weapon than the dagger. (there is no "reach" stat, for example)

Quote from: silva;652164And, as the dagger attacks faster than any other,  )

It does?  I thought each side rolled initiative on a d6, and the side that won went first.  Team initiative, and no individual weapon speed.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652165It does?  I thought each side rolled initiative on a d6, and the side that won went first.  Team initiative, and no individual weapon speed.

By "faster", he means more attacks per round with a "light weapon" (i.e. dagger) than with a longer weapon. Not when the attack(s) occur compared to other actions.

Quote from: K Peterson;652166By "faster", he means more attacks per round with a "light weapon" (i.e. dagger) than with a longer weapon. Not when the attack(s) occur compared to other actions.

Even then, I don't recall any version of D&D that used single damage for all weapons and allowed multiple attacks per round like that.  I could be wrong, but I don't remember anything like that.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652167Even then, I don't recall any version of D&D that used single damage for all weapons and allowed multiple attacks per round like that.  I could be wrong, but I don't remember anything like that.

Trust me: it's in Holmes Basic, but wasn't carried over into any later editions. I don't own OD&D, so I have no clue if that rule originated there or was something that Holmes designed himself.

Quote from: K Peterson;652168Trust me: it's in Holmes Basic, but wasn't carried over into any later editions. I don't own OD&D, so I have no clue if that rule originated there or was something that Holmes designed himself.

I know it's not in OD&D, and I know it's not in Moldvay's basic (the only two versions of D&D that used one damage die that I have.  So it would have to have been in Holmes.

I'm continually amazed at the way OSR fanboys yammer about how awesome "old school" D&D was, yet have no idea what was actually in it, content-wise.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;652170I'm continually amazed at the way OSR fanboys yammer about how awesome "old school" D&D was, yet have no idea what was actually in it, content-wise.

There were about a half-dozen different editions and permutations of D&D in common use during the late seventies and early eighties. The 3 LBBs, 3+Expansion booklets, Holmes, 1e, Moldvay B/X, Mentzer BECMI, and all of the above plus "official Dragon material". You need to be a Talmudic scholar to keep all the details straight, but most people don't, because most people had no need to do so. The genius of D&D was that it worked just fine even if you ignored half the rules for any given edition or mixed two or three together in a house confection. In some cases, as with 3 LBB games, you had to do this just to get a functional game.

And amazingly, it turns out that if somebody puts thought and effort into personalizing a game to their own preference, they tend to feel a proprietary pleasure in the results.

That's because a fair chunk of the game was house-ruled. Whether something was stupid, wasn't covered, or we just felt like something different, we changed stuff. The game wasn't expected to cover everything or be the same in every group everywhere.

Remember the essence of "old school": rulings over rules.

In this, old school is swimming against the current of modern society, which has rules and procedures for everything. At my workplace, we have to fill out a form if we give someone a band-aid. My son's childcare rings us up and asks us if they want to give him a Panadol, and I have to say "yes" to two separate staff members so they can vouch for each-other if I deny it afterwards. On a chainsaw, we find the following caution,



The world was not always so. Once people expected to think for themselves. Game rules were not meant to be all-encompassing and perfect. You were supposed to do your own thing, this was in fact part of the joy of what is after all supposed to be a creative hobby.