TheRPGSite

All of these are from the AD&D 1st edition DMG (page 7), and pretty well define important aspects of RPGs, not to mention express what a fucking genius Gary Gygax really is.

Gary said:
1. "As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into my campaign, and how it must be handled; If so, why not play some game like chess? "

This is in direct contradiction to makers of games who want those games to be complete little microcosms, and who want to TELL you how their game should be run.  That's a big part of why I say these games are not RPGs.

2. "As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination.  Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability."

Leaving room open in a system allows the GM and even players to come up with ideas that will often be better than what the Game Designer could have thought up.  Notice that people sometimes accused Gary of being megalomaniacal, but he was at least humble enough to recognize that he is not the ultimate fountain of wisdom, and to design his game based on that principle.  Unlike many so-called RPG designers today, who want to impose their wills on gaming groups out of a certainty that whatever you thought up would be stupid in comparison to their sheer brilliance.

3. "As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them..."

So much for gimmicky mechanics.

4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

That's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system. Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into how they will "define stakes" or where they will put their tokens or how many beans they will invest in their action; but the one thing they're not allowed to do in these games is roleplay outside of the rules.

These are some points that define what a GOOD RPG is, and what a REAL RPG should be, and that are as true today as when they were written all those years ago.  

RPGPundit

Funny, I was reading through an old copy of the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide the other day, and thinking the same thing. Gary's advice in that book still holds true today, and will continue to be valuable advice in the future.

Hmmm ... perhaps those points help explain why Gary isn't a fan of 3e D&D?  (Especially points 3 & 4?)  ;)

The 1e DMG is one of the best sources of practical advice for running an RPG campaign, ever.  You definitely get the sense that a lot of what's between those covers was obtained through years of experience.

That said, there are some disconnects between what EGG wrote in his introductions and what actually made it into the core books as rules.  For example, I'd say point 3 was violated a few times: unarmed combat, psionics, the full initiative system, etc.  (As a complete aside, the biggest "huh?" for me was in his foreword to the PHB, where he stated there were no arbitrary limits placed on female strength or male charisma...then a couple of pages later there was the strength chart, with its arbitrary limits on female strength...)

Now we know that a lot of the cruft that had attached itself to the system was included by Gygax under protest as a concession to the Blumes or to grognards who wanted more wargame-oriented rules, but I'm willing to bet most of us didn't know this in the days before the internet.  Some of those rules were head-scratchingly obscure, even for a kid who'd spent much of his 12th year learning to play Squad Leader by himself.

That's all nitpicking on my part, though.  I take the 1e DMG with me to any game I run, whether or not it's AD&D.  The stuff between the covers is that good.

That is all advice I try to follow. I don't always succeed, but I always try.

-clash

Quote from: AkrasiaHmmm ... perhaps those points help explain why Gary isn't a fan of 3e D&D?  (Especially points 3 & 4?)  ;)

Based on what he's said about 3e and his own preferences these days, Gygax prefers rules-light systems. Hence his approval of Castles & Crusades. I personally don't see that 3 & 4 apply to 3e; if anything, 3e is the opposite to those points. But YMMV.

The Colonel is correct.

Quote from: AkrasiaHmmm ... perhaps those points help explain why Gary isn't a fan of 3e D&D?  (Especially points 3 & 4?)  ;)

I don't think you need much more explanation beyond the fact that I'd probably still have a bad feeling about anything called "D&D" after all Gary went through. It probably doesn't have much at all to do with D&D's system or current design.

RPGPundit

The 1e DMG is a goldmine of great insights and tips.  There's actuallly advice in there, while many books "GM Advice" sections are very light weight indeed.

It's remarkable that this advice seems almost "fresh" when read about 30 years later!

I actually think that - when well-written - GM Advice sections, examples of play, and "what is roleplaying" segments can be some of the most insightful parts of an RPG.

"What is roleplaying?" bits ought to let you know what the game designers consider an RPG to be. GM advice should, at their best, say "Here's how the game designers like to run this game" or "We think that this style of GMing plays to our game's strengths".

And the example of play really, really shouldn't be an afterthought. It's the game designer's chance to show the reading public what they think an absolutely (arche)typical session of their game would be like.

The 1e AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide scores well on all these counts - the example of play is pretty much a manifesto for "Gygaxian" gaming. Heroquest is also really good at this (and provides good examples of play for pretty much every rule in the rulebook), as did Runequest (with "Rurik's Saga"). Vampire: the Masquerade's GMing advice, however, neither plays to the system's strengths nor resembles most Vampire games I've seen (which tend to degenerate into "gothic superheroes"); while I can imagine that Mark Rein*Hagen runs Vampire like that, it's not the best use of the storyteller system. And the number of games I've seen where these segments have been total afterthoughts is kind of depressing.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson... I personally don't see that 3 & 4 apply to 3e; if anything, 3e is the opposite to those points. But YMMV.

Point 3 & 3e is definitely debatable, but point 4 certainly weighs against 3e.  IME and IMO of course.

I was looking at the 1st Ed. Player's handbook tonight.  A few observations:

* Players are told they need to have goals
* Players are told they need to work together
* Players are told *not* to buy/read the Dungeon Master's Guide
* There is no mention of a "Rule Zero" in the Player's Handbook -- unless the DM tells them otherwise, player's would have no reason to believe the DM wasn't following all the rules and making all dice rolls fairly, like in any other game
* Player's are told the DM is the final word on questions about the rules for that particular campaign

About a year back (maybe less), a poster on RPGNet and Dragonsfoot, JimLotFP, started a 101 Days of 1e AD&D thread.  His initial posts on the game led me to reread the essays on good play in the back of the PHB.  I hadn't read them for quite some time.

I wonder how many people have skipped over that stuff.  It makes me sad to think about it in a way, because the text contains some of the best advice on player preparation and teamwork ever.  Much like their counterparts in the DMG, the player essays are obviously the result of many, many sessions of experience and are presented as practical and pragmatic advice.

Great advice on designing and running games in the DMG, great advice on playing them in the PHB.  Damn I love those books.

Gary Gygax is a wise man.What other game designers do you like and what words of their wisdom would you share with us?

QuoteAs a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into my campaign, and how it must be handled; If so, why not play some game like chess?

Gary must have had an embolism after that, because I clearly recall him crapping on in Dragon about how if you didn't use the rules as written you weren't playing D&D.

Quote from: droogGary must have had an embolism after that, because I clearly recall him crapping on in Dragon about how if you didn't use the rules as written you weren't playing D&D.

There isn't exactly a 100% matchup between what Gary says and what he does day to day, plus there was still learning going on. This was the case well before he had a stroke. ;) Good god he's the guy that wrote that female dwarf beardarticle in Dragon, and he has admitted it was a full on troll in an actual pay-for-it publication.

Setting aside RPGPundit's "interesting" interpretations and exstrapolations, there are many, many times 1e squeezes out a big curly coiler on top of those guidelines. Those sorts of things are a big reason I dumped AD&D for 3e (well not really #4, but neither one of them is particularly good for that, but the biggest problem there I believe is the structuring towards selling supplement books and those books themselves). Was it "other people" at fault? *shrug* I guess you should look to Lejendary Adventure for that answer. Anyone here playing that right now?

P.S. The choice of "participant" in #1 is interesting.

For a near perfect version of old school D&D run the Rules Cyclopedia but follow Gygax's 1st edition advice.

Quote from: RPGPundit4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

That's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system. Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into how they will "define stakes" or where they will put their tokens or how many beans they will invest in their action; but the one thing they're not allowed to do in these games is roleplay outside of the rules.

RPGPundit, could you elaborate a bit on this point? Perhaps you (or someone who understands better about what you are talking about) could give an example?

Quote from: KashellRPGPundit, could you elaborate a bit on this point? Perhaps you (or someone who understands better about what you are talking about) could give an example?

Translation: He's talking out his ass mostly.

For example the rule that he's spit much "gimmicky" venom about, "say yes, or roll" and the Nobilis version "never say no" actually is very encouraging towards people creativity.

Same thing with "stakes", they help to have flexible rules by providing a general framework rather than a set of fixed listing of events that the rules cover.

So, if a game does something different than what one guy said over a quarter century ago it isn't a real RPG?

QuoteTranslation: He's talking out his ass mostly.

Ok.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonBased on what he's said about 3e and his own preferences these days, Gygax prefers rules-light systems. Hence his approval of Castles & Crusades.

Honestly, games are about having fun. I don't want to spend time keeping up with the latest ERRRRRatta just to play a game. It's why I think Living Grayhawk is a big mess (and it sucks bloody balls, ughhh).

D&D is great if you play with the same group for a few years, but those situations are rare. Even then, you *STILL* need to pull the rule books out every once in a while.

There's a good reason why I keep Uno next to my current [R&R] RPG materials. Of course, there's a big difference between "card game" and "RPG game", but you get my point -- play needs to be intuitive and fun.

Quote from: KashellHonestly, games are about having fun. I don't want to spend time keeping up with the latest ERRRRRatta just to play a game. It's why I think Living Grayhawk is a big mess (and it sucks bloody balls, ughhh).

D&D is great if you play with the same group for a few years, but those situations are rare. Even then, you *STILL* need to pull the rule books out every once in a while.

There's a good reason why I keep Uno next to my current [R&R] RPG materials. Of course, there's a big difference between "card game" and "RPG game", but you get my point -- play needs to be intuitive and fun.

Uh, OK. Now relate this to what you quoted from me. If you're gonna try to empirically prove that 3e D&D is not as fun a game as whatever you prefer, or that it doesn't meet these standards for a lot of others - and I do mean a lot of others, since it's the 800 lb. gorilla of RPGs - then there's really no discussion. Just because you have certain experiences doesn't mean they are universal to everyone who plays the game. I know people who can play D&D 3e without referencing the rulebooks, who know the rules that well. Plus the game actually is intuitive, no matter how many times people claim otherwise. Set a DC, roll a d20, add modifiers, compare the result to the DC. Seems pretty simple to me. It's not the game's fault there those who are obsessive-compulsive enough to feel they have to use every single optional rule presented in every book beyond the core.

And at least WotC admits to errata. Just because few other game companies release any doesn't equate to them not needing to.

Quote from: James McMurraySo, if a game does something different than what one guy said over a quarter century ago it isn't a real RPG?

Like it or not, the one who gets there first sets the standards.

RPGundit defined the guidelines as being for a "GOOD rpg" and a "REAL rpg", by which he means, "an rpg worth playing."

I don't know about "real rpg", sounds a bit like "real man" to me, but I do think they're reasonable guidelines for a "good rpg."

I don't think it's very useful to talk about what is or isn't an rpg, any more than it's useful to talk about what is or isn't a "real man." But we can talk about what is a good rpg, or a good man.

Quote from: RPGPunditUnlike many so-called RPG designers today...

Well, like who?  Honest question.

Quote from: jrientsFor a near perfect version of old school D&D run the Rules Cyclopedia but follow Gygax's 1st edition advice.

Now that's some excellent meta-advice!  :cool:

Quote from: RPGPunditGary said:
1. "As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into my campaign, and how it must be handled; If so, why not play some game like chess? "

Emphasis mine.  Note that he states "participant" and not "GM".  Is Gary telling us that all players should have input on the details of the campaign?

Quote2. "As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination.  Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability."

Yup.  More undermining the authority of the GM, as he invites even players to come up with ideas that will often be better than what the Game Designer could have thought up.

Quote3. "As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them..."

So much for crappy mechanics, gimmicky or not.

Quote4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

[/i]And more crappy mechanics, gimmicky or not.

Damns, Pundit.  That was a lazy bit of selective editing and loose interpretation on your part.

!i!

Quote from: RezendevousWell, like who?  Honest question.

Oh, there's shitloads of them. Vince Baker, Bruce Baugh, Borgstrom, Snead, Kenson, the entire GR crew, the entire WW crew, etc etc... and of course, pretty much everyone over at the Forge.  Having the Game Designer force his philosophy and style of play on the game itself and creating a GM by obligation who is impotent to change that style is pretty well their guiding philosophy over there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaDamns, Pundit.  That was a lazy bit of selective editing and loose interpretation on your part.

!i!

What a joke. You're the one who is interpreting it totally out of context, and you aren't fooling anyone.  The fact that Gygax wrote this in the DM'S GUIDE should be enough to make it clear who he was talking about, and for.

Remember, in AD&D 1st edition players were expected NOT to read the DMG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditRemember, in AD&D 1st edition players were expected NOT to read the DMG.

Better yet, they were told not to read it. Oh yes, that was a real standard setter. One of the biggest loads of elitist tripe to ever come down the RPG pike.

Knights & Knaves has a compilation of the various answers to questions Gary Gygax has posted on message boards over the past few years.  Some really interesting comments on his inspiration for elements in the original game, as well as how he actually played the game:

http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=570

Quote from: Gary GygaxThere is often player pressure to add complexities and complications to rules and systems, such additions being urged in areas that the players like and believe to be critical to enjoyment of the game. I did that for some writing in OAD&D and regretted it considerably thereafter--mainly weapons vs. armor types and psionics.

Quote from: blakkieBetter yet, they were told not to read it. Oh yes, that was a real standard setter. One of the biggest loads of elitist tripe to ever come down the RPG pike.

I remember that advice, but I don't see why it was 'elitist'.  I think EGG's point was simply that players would have more fun if they had to discover the way that the 'AD&D world' (so to speak) worked on their own.  Unknown = mystery and adventure.

Of course every AD&D player I knew in the early 1980s owned and read the DMG like a religious text ...
:)

Yeah, I figured so:

QuoteDON'T WORRY, BE LEJENDARY
Water under the bridge is long gone, and there's little benefit in analyzing the distant flow. For my current thinking in regards to FRPG system excellence, I refer you to the Lejendary Adventure game

Ok, so maybe that's a bit of a sales plug too. But it does make sense when he had free reign and some time and experience behind him he'd come up with something different, and to his own personal gaming preferences. I'd be highly suspisious of any game made by a designer that didn't really crave to play what he was making.

Curiously Lejendary is a skills based, classless game. Never played the game but I've recently checked through i a bit. The gist is you pick up Abilities (skills) and select, or not, an "Order" that is sort of like careers but with dues and benefits for advancing while in the Order. You can also be Unordered, which has different benefits for advancing. Rewards (Merits) for advancement are both general and also awarded to specific Abilities.

Relatively rules "light" (EDIT:maybe rules "loose" would be a better term), so little wonder that his own preference is not for 3e since 1e was already headed in the wrong direction.

More Gary Gygax on 3rd edition...

Quote from: Gary GygaxWell, after being at RPG activity since 1972, I finally realized something that should have been evident to me a couple of decades ago. When I GM I prefer to "wing it" much of the time, and ignore rules that get in the way of the flow of the adventure. The same is true when I play a character, prefering to use logic and imagination in preference to hunting up rules. In short, I do not like rules-heavy systems. Rule-playing is worse than roll-playing. I can enjoy a good deal of hack & slash, but even a bit of rules lawyering makes me want to go and find something else to do.
Additionally, I find no soul in the new D&D game, no archetypes, just seek and destroy play and too much of the comic book superhero in characters.
It is no reflection on those who enjoy the game, just my personal taste that leads me elsewhere.

Quote from: Gary GygaxIMO there has been a vast shift in game focus in 3E. The archetype has gone by the board, comic book-like feats are a feature, the whole purpose of play is set on killing things, and power gaming is encouraged. Long-term play is not facilitated by the new game. However, all that seems to be acceptable, as so many of the RPG players like it.
Creating good adventure modules is very difficult, and the returns on average ones are minimal compared to core books and major supplements. You bet it is a clever business move on WotC's part to concentrate on the high-volume products and leave the production of low-volume support material to other publishers.
In all I believe that the long term result of this is indeed likely to affect the D&D game adversely. Only time will tell, but the advent of 3.5E so soon after 3E seems to bear out what I envisage.

Quote from: AkrasiaI remember that advice, but I don't see why it was 'elitist'.  I think EGG's point was simply that players would have more fun if they had to discover the way that the 'AD&D world' (so to speak) worked on their own.  Unknown = mystery and adventure.

I suspect that might have been the reason for the split. Hell, it even makes some sense. But how the split was made?  Mystery in worlds is great! Mystery in how the rules work sucks. Especially when they might change moment to moment.

Quote from: StuartMore Gary Gygax on 3rd edition...

Quote from: Gary Gygax....Long-term play is not facilitated by the new game.....

This I don't get. I wonder what he's thinking here?

EDIT: Hrmmm, I wonder if I can get my old ENWorld account to work so I can ask question of him directly.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a joke. You're the one who is interpreting it totally out of context, and you aren't fooling anyone.

The "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense?

!i!

Quote from: blakkieI suspect that might have been the reason for the split. Hell, it even makes some sense. But how the split was made?  Mystery in worlds is great! Mystery in how the rules work sucks. Especially when they might change moment to moment.

No, the rules were just not the player's concern.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense?

!i!

No the "I'm quoting the FUCKING DMG" defense.  You're the one who picked apart the quote and interpreted it completely out of its context. And, I'll note, to try to put a spin on it that only the most ignorant would ever be able to buy as coming from Gary Gygax.

What you did was about on par with taking a quote from Simon Wiesenthal and trying to argue that he's actually being anti-semitic.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditNo the "I'm quoting the FUCKING DMG" defense.  You're the one who picked apart the quote and interpreted it completely out of its context.

Really?  Let's have a look at this again...

Quote from: RPGPundit3. "As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them..."

So much for gimmicky mechanics.

4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

That's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system.

Do you really think that Gygax was talking about gimmicky mechanics?  Back in a time when AD&D was pretty much the only game in town?  Do you still maintain that I'm the one who's quoting out of context for his own purposes, or did you mean to say something along the lines that we both are, only you forgot to mention yourself and that you failed to recognise that I was doing so to satirise your assertions?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditThat's yet another frequent problem of many games these days; they encourage routine and mundanity in the system. Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into how they will "define stakes" or where they will put their tokens or how many beans they will invest in their action; but the one thing they're not allowed to do in these games is roleplay outside of the rules.

Out of curiosity, what exactly qualifies "check the ability score, add the appropriate bonus points, compare the result against the target number" as more gimmicky than "roll the d20, add the appropriate ability bonus, compare the result against the target number"?

What I was doing was pointing out how Gygax's advice, ported to the modern day, is still as relevant, and perhaps more necessary, than ever.

He was talking about the equivalent to the "gimmicky mechanics" of his time. And his comments about mundanity are directly relevant today.

So no, my comments aren't out of any context other than the historical.

My comments are taking what he said, and saying "look, see? He is saying stuff that can be applied today".

What you did, on the other hand, was take his stuff and twist it into the exact opposite of what he was saying then, to try to apply it to the opposite of what it would be intended for now.

RPGPundit

Quote from: GrimGentOut of curiosity, what exactly qualifies "check the ability score, add the appropriate bonus points, compare the result against the target number" as more gimmicky than "roll the d20, add the appropriate ability bonus, compare the result against the target number"?

I know what I'm talking about here.
I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about here.
But I surely don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you did, on the other hand, was take his stuff and twist it into the exact opposite of what he was saying then, to try to apply it to the opposite of what it would be intended for now.

Actually, what I did was twist your assertions into the exact opposite of what you were trying to say, in order to show that Gygax's sensible advice can be applied to pretty much all games, not just your stable of favorites.  Your pinpointing of "gimmicky mechanics" was the most glaring bias you were trying to assert as wisdom.  I honestly believe that Gygax was discussing crappy mechanics, not cute gimmicks.  If a cute gimmick works and works well, why wouldn't someone use it?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditI know what I'm talking about here.
I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about here.
But I surely don't know what the fuck you're talking about here.

"Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into ... how many beans they will invest in their action..."

From a strictly mechanical point of view, I don't really see how this "beancounting" is enough to render a system any trickier than, say, d20.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the rules were just not the player's concern.

Sounds a lot like "matters of state are none of a serf's/woman's concern". :hehe:

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the rules were just not the player's concern.

I'm not sure where you read that.  Maybe you meant something like "the players were encouraged not to read the rules in the DMG"?

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIf you're gonna try to empirically prove that 3e D&D is not as fun a game as whatever you prefer, or that it doesn't meet these standards for a lot of others - and I do mean a lot of others, since it's the 800 lb. gorilla of RPGs - then there's really no discussion.

D&D 3.x is fun. But if you want to play anything beyond the core books, prepare to be assaulted with lots of monkey poo.

My main issue with D&D 3.x is it's inability to mesh with new material well. If your group plays with splat books, it's almost like playing an entirely different game.

I also really despise the grappling and two weapon fighting rules, but besides that, I'm cool with it.

None of this means that "zomg my game is more fun than D&D 3.x" It means that I don't like the rules, because I think they are too complicated.

Quote from: GrimGent"Players are encouraged to conform to gimmicky systems and funnel their creativity into ... how many beans they will invest in their action..."

From a strictly mechanical point of view, I don't really see how this "beancounting" is enough to render a system any trickier than, say, d20.

Oh, I see. As usual your one-track mind is worried that I'm insulting Nobilis here.

Don't worry, I am.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure where you read that.  Maybe you meant something like "the players were encouraged not to read the rules in the DMG"?

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. With the emphasis being that this is not the horrible thing others make it out to be.

It is fairly unrealistic, mind you, impractical; but not wrong.

There's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, I see. As usual your one-track mind is worried that I'm insulting Nobilis here.

Don't worry, I am.

Nothing unusual there, in other words. But since this is hardly the first time you've been disparaging "beancounting" in RPG systems, I have to wonder why it is that you appear to view point allocation mechanics of all sorts as a plague upon gaming. Rationally speaking, it doesn't make much sense.

QuoteMy main issue with D&D 3.x is it's inability to mesh with new material well. If your group plays with splat books, it's almost like playing an entirely different game.

Huh? The Complete Xxxx and their Xxxx & Xxxx predecesors work well within the rules and introduce very few actual rules (the one I can think of is the whole think surrounding Quick and interupts and such).

Now when you leave that, yes you are heading off the reservation. Which was the whole point. To have a different game that's the same game.

QuoteI also really despise the grappling.....

Grappling is disturbingly close to AD&D's, where it was humped too. I chalk that up to something that got missed on the to-fix list. :(

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong well meaning totalitarian government in place to keep people in line.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere's nothing wrong about wanting to give the GM authority and about discouraging players from using rules-lawyering to get their way.

EGG is certainly not a fan of rules-lawyering...

Quote from: Gary Gygaxeven a bit of rules lawyering makes me want to go and find something else to do.

Quote from: YamoLike it or not, the one who gets there first sets the standards.

If that were true, we could fairly quickly prove that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (or pick your favorite artist of the last couple centuries) totally sucked ass. Standards change with the times, except in a paranoid and/or delusional worlds of those who take a "My way is the only way" mindset.

Quote from: RPGPunditHaving the Game Designer force his philosophy and style of play on the game itself and creating a GM by obligation who is impotent to change that style is pretty well their guiding philosophy over there.

How  can a game designer, even one so insidiously evil as those at the Forge, force their philosophy and style on anyone? Are you saying that the people playing the games didn't buy the games and decide to play them, but were somehow coerced into it by these dictatorial overlords of alternative gaming?

Quote from: GrimGentNothing unusual there, in other words. But since this is hardly the first time you've been disparaging "beancounting" in RPG systems, I have to wonder why it is that you appear to view point allocation mechanics of all sorts as a plague upon gaming. Rationally speaking, it doesn't make much sense.

It removes the element of risk that often acts as a motivator to relying upon roleplaying; and encourages people to rely on accountancy and rules/points-manipulation instead.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieThere is nothing wrong with having a strong well meaning totalitarian government in place to keep people in line.

What a brainbashingly stupid comparison. Unless someone is putting a gun to your head and FORCING you to be a player.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayHow  can a game designer, even one so insidiously evil as those at the Forge, force their philosophy and style on anyone? Are you saying that the people playing the games didn't buy the games and decide to play them, but were somehow coerced into it by these dictatorial overlords of alternative gaming?

Judging by the Forge's pathetic sales records, I'd have to say no.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a brainbashingly stupid comparison. Unless someone is putting a gun to your head and FORCING you to be a player.

My country! Love it or leave it!

Quote from: James McMurrayIf that were true, we could fairly quickly prove that The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (or pick your favorite artist of the last couple centuries) totally sucked ass. Standards change with the times, except in a paranoid and/or delusional worlds of those who take a "My way is the only way" mindset.

The argument is based on category, not quality.  

D&D invented the RPG, with other founding fathers like Runequest and Traveller helping to define it.  The tradition continued with a whole host of games in the 80's.  Something that in no way resembles any of these games is clearly not a RPG.

Take the swinetacular My Life with Master.  It, in no shape or form, resembles any of these games.  Neither does the swinetastic game, Nobilis.  They are games, and players may even take on a role, but they are not RPGs.  No more than the TSR game Alpha Dawn was a real RPG, or the MB Heroquest boardgame was, or any of the Murder Mystery type games are.

A mule might have descended from a horse, and even share some characteristics, but it's not still not a horse.  And it probably won't win the Kentucky Derby, either.

Quote from: RPGPunditJudging by the Forge's pathetic sales records, I'd have to say no.

RPGPundit

No, they aren't being coerced? So no, the game designers aren't forcing their philosophies?

Quote from: RPGPunditOh, I see. As usual your one-track mind is worried that I'm insulting Nobilis here.

Don't worry, I am.

RPGPundit

Er, wouldn't that be instead his "correct assessment of your one-track mind"? :rolleyes:

Quote from: RPGPunditIt removes the element of risk that often acts as a motivator to relying upon roleplaying; and encourages people to rely on accountancy and rules/points-manipulation instead.

I don't see that, sorry to say. The amount of points that a player is willing to spend only determines the scale of what will be feasible, the uppermost limits of what the character can actually achieve, while the baseline abilities augmented by the points function no differently from the stats in any other RPG. The only distinction between (let's say) "I roll a d10 and add my Sneak skill" and "I check my Stealth attribute and add three skill points", followed in both cases by "Is that score higher than the guard's Perception?", is the understandable lack of random elements in the diceless example. Neither of those is less conductive to roleplaying than the other, and neither involves less risk.

QuoteTake the swinetacular My Life with Master.  It, in no shape or form, resembles any of these games.  Neither does the swinetastic game, Nobilis.  They are games, and players may even take on a role, but they are not RPGs.  No more than the TSR game Alpha Dawn was a real RPG, or the MB Heroquest boardgame was, or any of the Murder Mystery type games are.

Or Amber? :D  You don't realize you sound like some grizzled old-foggie complaining about that new fangled jazz not being "real music"?

Quote from: jgantsTake the swinetacular My Life with Master.  It, in no shape or form, resembles any of these games.  Neither does the swinetastic game, Nobilis.  They are games, and players may even take on a role, but they are not RPGs.

Now there's an interesting take on the matter... Would you mind naming just one feature of Nobilis which in your opinion disqualifies it as an RPG?

Seriously, jgants, if you've got a non-arbitrary taxonomy for RPGs I'd like to hear it.  I'm perfectly willing to say that Nobilis is just as much an RPG as Dawn Patrol, but I don't see how either of them misses the boat completely.

Quote from: GrimGentNow there's an interesting take on the matter... Would you mind naming just one feature of Nobilis which in your opinion disqualifies it as an RPG?

He doesn't like it?

Quote from: James McMurrayHe doesn't like it?

Or it's diceless, or there's not enough combat in the game, or the book is too heavy... But I'd be interested in hearing an actual logical explanation.

Quote from: GrimGentNow there's an interesting take on the matter... Would you mind naming just one feature of Nobilis which in your opinion disqualifies it as an RPG?

It's a thematic game :evillaugh:

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jgantsD&D invented the RPG, with other founding fathers like Runequest and Traveller helping to define it.  The tradition continued with a whole host of games in the 80's.

And it stopped there, damn it!  And there hasn't been any "good music" written since Gershwin and Tommy Dorsey.

QuoteSomething that in no way resembles any of these games is clearly not a RPG.

Okay, now that's just cute. Disingenuous, but cute. :)

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd it stopped there, damn it!  And there hasn't been any "good music" written since Gershwin and Tommy Dorsey.

Gershwin was Beethoven's Bitch! All that hopping around on the piano keys? Fuck, that wasn't music. More like rats let loose in a concert hall. Tommy Dorsey? Name one symphony that he wrote!

Anything worth doing is worth overdoing. - Russ Potapinski

Quote from: GrimGentNow there's an interesting take on the matter... Would you mind naming just one feature of Nobilis which in your opinion disqualifies it as an RPG?

How about "all of it"?

I mean, you aren't even playing a person - you're playing a force or concept of the world.  "I'm GrimGent, a mercenary fighter from Vlargg" is pretty far from "I'm Lost Virginity" or "I'm Disappointment" or whatever.

Plus, there's no real tasks/challenges - it's a resource management game.  You may as well be playing contact bridge: "I am North.  I will use my Ace of Diamonds to win this challenge".  "Aha.  I, West, shall thwart your attempt by using my Three of Trump".

The Nobilis have personalities, goals, desires, and behavior beyond their cosmic assignment.  PC Nobles are assumed to be formerly human.

Quote from: jrientsSeriously, jgants, if you've got a non-arbitrary taxonomy for RPGs I'd like to hear it.  I'm perfectly willing to say that Nobilis is just as much an RPG as Dawn Patrol, but I don't see how either of them misses the boat completely.

Aren't all taxonomies somewhat arbitrary?  Besides, how does one go about codifying them with regards to artistic works?

Put it this way - I know classical music when I hear it.  I know rap when I hear it.  But I don't have a set of rules to tell me why - I just know.

Or TV shows - everyone who watches them (or even sees a commercial) knows Two and a Half Men is meant to be a comedy, CSI is a crime procedural, and ER is a drama.  But can Joe Blow off the street explain why - I doubt it.  That doesn't mean he doesn't know a comedy or a drama when he sees one.

Quote from: jgantsPlus, there's no real tasks/challenges - it's a resource management game.  You may as well be playing contact bridge: "I am North.  I will use my Ace of Diamonds to win this challenge".  "Aha.  I, West, shall thwart your attempt by using my Three of Trump".

Resource management doesn't remove challenges, it reshapes them. In the example you gave North challenged West and was slapped down. Later on though, he may be able to successfully challenge West because that three of trumps is gone.

It's kinda like how a D&D character may challenge a goblin and lose some hit points and spell slots. He wins, but the next goblin might kill him because his resources are low.

Quote from: jgantsPut it this way - I know classical music when I hear it.  I know rap when I hear it.  But I don't have a set of rules to tell me why - I just know.

Rap has a guy talking in a sing-song format. Classical music involves classical instruments. Obviously there's more, but the point is that definitions do exist for those things (and indeed all taxonomies I can think of off the top of my head).

QuoteOr TV shows - everyone who watches them (or even sees a commercial) knows Two and a Half Men is meant to be a comedy, CSI is a crime procedural, and ER is a drama.  But can Joe Blow off the street explain why - I doubt it.  That doesn't mean he doesn't know a comedy or a drama when he sees one.

Comedies tell jokes and usually have a laugh track. Crime procedurals generally deal with crime procedures. Dramas are frequently more dramatic. Again, definitions exist.

Yeah, but I too know an RPG when I see one.  I've played Nobilis.  It's not to my tastes but by my lights its an RPG.  Dawn Patrol is as much an RPG as the original little beige books, arguably more so in at least on dimension.

What bugs me about trying to draw these bright lines is that there is always somebody left on the wrong side of it.  Always.  And sometimes that seems to be the point.  One of the reason these distinctions are made is to exclude others.  I don't dig that.

Quote from: jgantsI mean, you aren't even playing a person - you're playing a force or concept of the world.  "I'm GrimGent, a mercenary fighter from Vlargg" is pretty far from "I'm Lost Virginity" or "I'm Disappointment" or whatever.

Sorry, nope. You're playing a person who has been granted immense power over a concept and charged to protect it with his life. You can play a mercenary fighter from Vlargg if you want, but he'll be expected to fight in order to defend something that forces from beyond the universe want destroyed.

QuotePlus, there's no real tasks/challenges - it's a resource management game.  You may as well be playing contact bridge: "I am North.  I will use my Ace of Diamonds to win this challenge".  "Aha.  I, West, shall thwart your attempt by using my Three of Trump".

Again, nope. The tasks in the game are not fundamentally different from those in any other RPG, except that they are based on a relatively small number of stats and resolved without dice. They are certainly not as abstract as your example: sneaking past a guard would still be the same sort of a challenge as in D&D, although under normal circumstances no mundane guard could hope catch a Noble.

Quote from: blakkieGershwin was Beethoven's Bitch! All that hopping around on the piano keys? Fuck, that wasn't music. More like rats let loose in a concert hall. Tommy Dorsey? Name one symphony that he wrote!

The reason I brought Gershwin and Dorsey into the mix was because I once had this very discussion before with a friend of my father's.  I was a teenager at the time, we were all at a picnic where a band was playing Gershwin and Dorsey tunes, and my dad's friend took it upon himself to point out to me that they don't make music like that anymore, and that all of this new stuff -- like The Beatles, for crying out loud -- were all just passing fancy that would be forgotten by subsequent generations.

Beginning to sound familiar?  "My X is better than your X.  In fact, your X isn't even X at all -- it's Y, or maybe even Z."

!i!

Quote from: GrimGentSorry, nope. You're playing a person who has been granted immense power over a concept and charged to protect it with his life. You can play a mercenary fighter from Vlargg if you want, but he'll be expected to fight in order to defend something that forces from beyond the universe want destroyed.

And arguably this doesn't really matter. It's not "Person Playing Game," it's "Role Playing Game." Even if you really aren't a person, you're still a role.

Quote from: James McMurrayAnd arguably this doesn't really matter. It's not "Person Playing Game," it's "Role Playing Game." Even if you really aren't a person, you're still a role.

Hey, it's an animistic setting. Everything is a person.

There you go then. I want to be a table. :)

The RPGA once published an adventure module where the pre-made PCs were one human fighter and several sentient magic items.

Quote from: James McMurrayThere you go then. I want to be a table. :)

I've heard of a PC who was a shotgun that could possess people...

Quote from: jrientsThe RPGA once published an adventure module where the pre-made PCs were one human fighter and several sentient magic items.

And it was put on trial, condemned as a witch, burned at the stake, and its ashes were scattered to the four corners of the Earth.

Oh, wait.  It wasn't even a person, so they couldn't have done that.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd it was put on trial, condemned as a witch, burned at the stake, and its ashes were scattered to the four corners of the Earth.

Oh, wait.  It wasn't even a person, so they couldn't have done that.

Yeah, they couldn't call it a witch.

Quote from: blakkieEr, wouldn't that be instead his "correct assessment of your one-track mind"? :rolleyes:

His "one track mind" is obsessed with Nobilis.  It seems that's all he's usually here to talk about.

And yeah, sure, in this case, he was right on the money.  He knows that with me, when I talk about "beancounting", I'm criticizing Nobilis.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd yeah, sure, in this case, he was right on the money.  He knows that with me, when I talk about "beancounting", I'm criticizing Nobilis.

You know, it does sound about as silly as someone calling D&D "an accountant's wet dream" just because you have to keep track of HP.

Quote from: RPGPunditHis "one track mind" is obsessed with Nobilis.  It seems that's all he's usually here to talk about.

And yeah, sure, in this case, he was right on the money.  He knows that with me, when I talk about "beancounting", I'm criticizing Nobilis.

So is often "wrong" about these things?

Guys, could someone briefly summarise for me what the fuck this thread is about?  It is most opaque.

In case any of these points are on topic:

Of course Nobilis is a fucking rpg, you might not like it but it's a game in which you play a role, it's as much an rpg as Amber.  Whether it's a good rpg is another question, and one I have no strong view on.

Banning players from the DMG is not comparable to living under totalitarianism.

Weebles wobble, but they do not fall down, stamping on them until they break does not count as them falling down.

That said, shatterproof rules do actually shatter, if you try hard enough.

Quote from: BalbinusBanning players from the DMG is not comparable to living under totalitarianism.

At a human suffering level, no. Because it is just a game, and nobody really dies and they get to go home afterward.  But then Blue Rose is just a game, and having secret rules (and non-rules) is certainly the opposite of egalitarian.  So bitching about some other game or games being all about "elitist swine" while holding up such a model as something to aspire to is assinine.

EDIT: Ding! Passed three pages, this one's done. Catch you next thread folks! :)

Quote from: jrientsFor a near perfect version of old school D&D run the Rules Cyclopedia but follow Gygax's 1st edition advice.

My first roleplaying experiences were playing the old red box Basic D&D.  The DM had a stack of AD&D 1st Edition books, including the DMG, that he used for advice.  When I look back on those early years of gaming, I remember what a mean bastard the DM was.  He rarely ever actually killed characters, but damn he made some tough dungeons.  Magic and treasure was something to truly savour.  And fuck did he make us crawl through the levels.

The rules were simple, the stories were tight and the game never got unbalanced.  There were no prestige classes, no feats, no attacks of opportunity... shit, there weren't even skills.  

We had no creative agenda, no social contract and no kickers.  

And yet, somehow we all had fun.  More fun than I've ever had playing any game since.  Go figure.

Gary's a pretty experienced dude.  As a gamer and as a designer and as a publisher.

He was right about playing the one true way.  Standardization does make it easier to walk into a new group and know what's what.  He may have been a bit hard nosed about it at times.  Standardization was the goal of AD&D so I can see how he'd find himself in favor of it at the time.

He was also terribly opposed to things like critical hits and you could really see that he was already feeling frozen out of his own creation by the early eighties.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe reason I brought Gershwin and Dorsey into the mix was because I once had this very discussion before with a friend of my father's.  I was a teenager at the time, we were all at a picnic where a band was playing Gershwin and Dorsey tunes, and my dad's friend took it upon himself to point out to me that they don't make music like that anymore, and that all of this new stuff -- like The Beatles, for crying out loud -- were all just passing fancy that would be forgotten by subsequent generations.

Beginning to sound familiar?  "My X is better than your X.  In fact, your X isn't even X at all -- it's Y, or maybe even Z."

!i!

 Its actually a weak analogy.

 your kilometerage may vary.

 - E.W.C.

It's easy to grab a few pull quotes and make him look...whatever.

Seanchai

Okay I've waded through this whole thread now.

 What I'm trying to figure out is why anybody got mad about what Pundit said in the original post.

 I never played that much D&D  EVER.   Just a little bit when I was in High School.
 My "gateway" game into the fun side of the hobby was the original TRAVELLER. (guess that makes me odd to start with.)

 That being said - the few lines that Pundit man quoted still seem like pretty good advice 25 years after Gygax wrote them.  I don't think Gygax is genuius or anything - but he did have some good ideas some of the time.

 As for the idea that players shouldn't read the Dungeon Master's guide - that just makes sense. Why would they want to ?  Unless they plan to be the DM of a future session.
 When I used to play a character - I just *PLAYED*. I never wanted to cheat or get "players advantages".  My thought was "Does my character really know this stuff?" . If my character doesn't need to know it for the immediate game session or the next one - then I don't need to read it.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou're the one who picked apart the quote and interpreted it completely out of its context.

You quoted 102 words. That's not exactly a lot of context.

Seanchai

Quote from: KoltarWhat I'm trying to figure out is why anybody got mad about what Pundit said in the original post.

It's a tiny fragment of what Gygax has said over the years and is not necessarily representational of his views. If it's good advice—and it's taken out of context here, so it's hard to know for sure—it's countered by plenty of bad advice, etc..

Seanchai

So, essentially, you will not accept an argument in any case. In which case why bother?

Quote from: RPGPunditAll of these are from the AD&D 1st edition DMG (page 7), and pretty well define important aspects of RPGs, not to mention express what a fucking genius Gary Gygax really is.

Cyborg Commando. Dangerous Journeys. Lejendary Adventures.

QuoteGary said:
1. "As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into my campaign, and how it must be handled; If so, why not play some game like chess? "

Class level limits for races.

Quote2. "As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination.  Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability."

OK, +1 to the EGG.

Quote3. "As an active Dungeon Master I kept a careful watch for things which would tend to complicate matters without improving them..."

Initiative and surprise. Unarmed combat. Weapon modifications to AC. Psionics.

Quote4. "...(and) rules which lessened the fantastic and unexpected in favour of the mundane and the ordinary"

The World of *yawn* Greyhawk.

Quote from: levCyborg Commando. Dangerous Journeys. Lejendary Adventures

For what it's worth, Frank Mentzer has publicly taken the lion's share of the blame for Cyborg Commando.

Quote from: levClass level limits for races.

You state that as if everyone is going to automatically agree that the concept was bad from the beginning.

Quote from: levInitiative and surprise. Unarmed combat. Weapon modifications to AC. Psionics.

Crunchy weapon rules were a player-requested modification of Gygax's original "every attack does d6" method.  The psionics system was not a Gygax invention.  If you want to go after the man, please pick your attacks more carefully.

Quote from: levThe World of *yawn* Greyhawk.

Okay, this one is just fucking ridiculous.  So Greyhawk doesn't light your jets?  Who the hell are you and why should I care?  I got a legion of RPGA nerds over here who still play in that setting every weekend.  Many of my best gaming experiences were in that yawn-inducing realm.

Quote from: jrientsOkay, this one is just fucking ridiculous. So Greyhawk doesn't light your jets? Who the hell are you and why should I care? I got a legion of RPGA nerds over here who still play in that setting every weekend. Many of my best gaming experiences were in that yawn-inducing realm.

There's another Greyhawk RPGA campaign starting up in the spring here, and folks are plenty psyched about it.  Greyhawk rawks.
 
Lev, from what I've seen from you regarding D&D, you may not care, but if you really wanted to learn a little bit more about Gygax, his influence on the hobby, and his ideas of what an RPG should be or include, perhaps you should look up some of his interviews, or the Q&A threads on ENWorld.

Beware the attack of the Levites....They can only be killed by removal of the head, destruction of the brain or dismemberment.

Oh hang on, that'd deadites ain't it? :haw:

Out of curiosity  - What was so damn wrong about the original /first post ?

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarOut of curiosity  - What was so damn wrong about the original /first post ?

"It's a tiny fragment of what Gygax has said over the years and is not necessarily representational of his views. If it's good advice—and it's taken out of context here, so it's hard to know for sure—it's countered by plenty of bad advice, etc.."

Seanchai

Quote from: jrientsYou state that as if everyone is going to automatically agree that the concept was bad from the beginning.

More to the point I am criticising the "do what I say, not what I do" part of the EGG.

QuoteCrunchy weapon rules were a player-requested modification of Gygax's original "every attack does d6" method.  The psionics system was not a Gygax invention.  If you want to go after the man, please pick your attacks more carefully.

Not Gygax's invention? He claims to be the sole author of the PH and holds the copyright.

And the rest?

QuoteOkay, this one is just fucking ridiculous.  So Greyhawk doesn't light your jets?  Who the hell are you and why should I care?

Because it is contrary to the stated aim; that's all.

All I'm saying is that there is often a disparity between the advice that Gygax gave out in AD&D1e and the actual rules he developed.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteAll I'm saying is that there is often a disparity between the advice that Gygax gave out in AD&D1e and the actual rules he developed.

With all due respect to the guy, the hobby was still very new around the time he wrote AD&D1E.  He was probably feeling his way.

Quote from: KenHRI wonder how many people have skipped over that stuff.  It makes me sad to think about it in a way, because the text contains some of the best advice on player preparation and teamwork ever.  

Aye, and there's the rub. I think Gygax had some great insight, and while I'll keep my opinion on certain interpretations of the Master's words to msyelf, I think we can all agree that the old boy had the advice spot on.

But to the point I was making, all the good advice, forgeian mechanics, or anything else you want to throw into the game, will not do a bleedin' thing if half the nits who try to run it just throw all that away CARELESSLY!  That last word deserves special emphasis, because making  well-understood effort to change something is one thing, while skipping certain bits without thought is quite another.

To think of all the bad behavior in gaming that gets blamed on the D&D mindset, when it's really more about bad habits of bad GMs than bad advice in the book.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteCyborg Commando. Dangerous Journeys. Lejendary Adventures.

Which of these does not belong?

I know DJ and I've read LA. Both are solid designs. DJ suffers from being rushed into publication, but that's about it.

LA is basically a slimmed down, cleaned up DJ. You have three traits, with each skill being a percentage of one of the traits. So if a character's Mental Trait is 40, then that character's Mental Skills can range from 40 at 100% of trait, down to 4 at 10% of Mental Trait. No skill can be greater (over 100%) than its governing trait. An elegant solution to the problem of characters who are better than they really should be.

I thought LA was a pretty well-thought out RPG, FWIW.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI thought LA was a pretty well-thought out RPG, FWIW.

Maybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary".  I mean really, Gary should know better.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary". I mean really, Gary should know better.

:haw:

I compleatly agree. :D

Quote from: Tyberious FunkMaybe. But it automatically loses points for the deliberate misspelling of "Lejendary".  I mean really, Gary should know better.

Done for trademark purposes. Much like "Toys R Us".

Quote from: mythusmageDone for trademark purposes. Much like "Toys R Us".

It doesn't really matter what the reason was.  The end result is only one step above calling the game "Kewl Adventures".

If I ever design a Fantasy RPG, I SOOOO am going to call it 'Kewl Adventures!!'
:D

I should call my RPG "Kuul Adventures". :D

Quote from: StuartI should call my RPG "Kuul Adventures". :D

And it shall have a chapter on spell casting titled "Majzhickq".

Quote from: droogGary must have had an embolism after that, because I clearly recall him crapping on in Dragon about how if you didn't use the rules as written you weren't playing D&D.

Indeed. The contradictory statements that one used to find in "The Sorcerer's Scroll" and some of the advice in the DMG wasn't bewildering, it was simply annoying to the nth degree. It did not generate the respect that comes from holding a consistent position.

Mind you, has anyone ever played the AD&D rules as they were written?

Quote from: Tyberious FunkWith all due respect to the guy, the hobby was still very new around the time he wrote AD&D1E.  He was probably feeling his way.

I get that feeling as well; the DMG in particular reads like one first draft long monotype... I would have rather he'd written a shorter book and paid more attention to consistency, correct emphasis, conciseness, playability etc. Still, this is all ancient history now and the world has moved on.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteMind you, has anyone ever played the AD&D rules as they were written?

I'm sure there's one or two people on Dragonsfoot... but I know that Gary didn't play with things like Psionics and Weapons vs AC adjustments.  Since there was so much encouragement to change / ignore rules that don't work for you, I don't see that as a problem with the game.  Some people like more crunch, and others want the gameplay to be more streamlined.

Quote from: lev_lafayetteMind you, has anyone ever played the AD&D rules as they were written?

Second Edition?  Absolutely.
 
I can't comment much on 1st edition material because our group made the transition from Basic D&D to AD&D pretty much when the 2nd edition came out.  We played it pretty much as written for a number of years.  Most of the optional rules were used, but we never really used any supplements (despite owning quite a lot of them).

Quote from: lev_lafayetteI would have rather he'd written a shorter book and paid more attention to consistency, correct emphasis, conciseness, playability etc. Still, this is all ancient history now and the world has moved on.

Similar criticisms can be laid at a number of modern games.

QuoteI would have rather he'd written a shorter book and paid more attention to consistency, correct emphasis, conciseness, playability etc.

You are an intellectual douchebag. Sophomoric reasoning, if any.

AD&D 1st was a decent if not grandiose product. Because it had a target audience, whiith their own history and their own receptional values.
For all others, there was D&D to get into the game.
And if you grokked the Red or Moldvay Box, you took AD&D as a toolbox for "Advancing".

Don´t you even consider what and whom AD&D was written for?

It´s amazing this whole shit is still in somebodies brains, where have twenty years of debate gone?


I´m sad you don´t belong to the target audience. The first step is to seperate your puny little values from the rest of the world.

Because they are not the same.

Settembrini: you are arguing with the same guy who considers AD&D 1st edition a "single-unit wargame" and "chess with dice". Somehow I doubt there is a chance for fruitful discussion here. :rolleyes:

That´s why I chose my words as I did.

Quote from: SettembriniDon´t you even consider what and whom AD&D was written for?

Here's the thing: He doesn't have to. You can all get your panties in a twist because he panned AD&D, but he doesn't have to look at it from a historical perspective. Looking at A&D with an eye for modern values and tastes is perfectly acceptable.

Seanchai

Quotefor modern values and tastes

Please list them, those "modern" values.

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's the thing: He doesn't have to. You can all get your panties in a twist because he panned AD&D, but he doesn't have to look at it from a historical perspective. Looking at A&D with an eye for modern values and tastes is perfectly acceptable.

Would you look at Johnny Cash or [your favorite dead musician here] with an eye for modern tastes and values? Would you claim that contemporary pop music has invalidated his music?

It's my old lament: RPGs are played by a disproportionately high number of people in tech and business jobs, and they're routinely trotting out the microchip development analogy. But RPGs are actually hybrids--part maths, part culture.

The culture part may actually be shaping the maths part: What kind of task resolution do we want? How much of it? How pervasive? Should it model the flight pattern of air sharks? Etc.

Quote from: SettembriniPlease list them, those "modern" values.

Why?

Seanchai

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWould you look at Johnny Cash or [your favorite dead musician here] with an eye for modern tastes and values?

I wouldn't because it's my favorite dead musician. What I might do, however, is look at the work of another dead musician I'm just now being introduced to with an eye for modern tastes and values. It is, after all, now and not whatever decade said musician died in.

And what's wrong with that? What's invalid about that? Why do we always have to critique with qualifiers?

I'm not saying that looking at AD&D with an eye toward the tastes back when it was produced or it's target audience then is any less valid than what I'm suggesting above either. I'm saying both are valid ways of approaching a work and getting your panties in a twist over it is dumb.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI wouldn't because it's my favorite dead musician. What I might do, however, is look at the work of another dead musician I'm just now being introduced to with an eye for modern tastes and values. It is, after all, now and not whatever decade said musician died in.

And what's wrong with that? What's invalid about that? Why do we always have to critique with qualifiers?

I'm not saying that looking at AD&D with an eye toward the tastes back when it was produced or it's target audience then is any less valid than what I'm suggesting above either. I'm saying both are valid ways of approaching a work and getting your panties in a twist over it is dumb.

OK, if that's the argument then I have no problem with it at all. But Lev is making a claim for the inexorable march of progress in RPG design. (Which FYI is based on his infatuation with RuneQuest--see his AD&D review on rpg.net.)

QuoteWhy?

Because you can´t. Because they don´t exist.
There is no "modern" in roleplaying.

Except for art and printing.

Yanno, there's something really kind of sad about someone carrying a grudge against a stupid game for over 30 years.  

AD&D isn't the most perfect game, in fact I pretty much hate it.  But I'm not writing hackjob "reviews" of it that are nothing more than my own personal axe to grind, and I think the very approval of said reviews on RPGnet jsut goes to show the problem with the site's excessive openness when it comes to the approval process.

I also don't buy the technology theory of RPGs, that there's really much in the way of "progress" in the development of roleplaying games.  games are different, not better.  There's advantages to every approach, and I've yet to see one that was clearly superior to another, outside of actually unusable rulessets, of which AD&D is most certainly not, no matter how much I may dislike it.

Perhaps my favorite quotes from a single paragraph of a single post from that discussion on tBP, and why it's so amusing to me to watch people defend it as "we're just looking at it from a more modern perspective" and similar approaches...

Quote from: thurgon on RPGNetLeaving aside the question, raised above by Sergio, as to whether AD&D is a good kill & loot game at all, I think Lev is reviewing it as an RPG, and it is reasonable to conclude that a book which does nothing but offer narrow support (and incomplete support - where are the reward rules, or the rules about perception and ambushes?) for kill & loot is not all that good an RPG book.

Note the scorn, the ridicule, the vitriol included in the simple classification: AD&D is kill & loot and that does not equal RPG.

Quote from: thurgon on RPGNetA clear implication of Lev's review, for example, is that the book lacks the depth to support that degree of characterisation or contextualisation that elevates RPGing above mere beer-&-pretzels dice-rolling. This may be, but need not be, a criticism of the game for being gamist its orientation. It could simply be a criticism of it for being shallow in a particular way (eg particularly crude, uninspiring or unexciting gamism).

See, AD&D is "mere beer-&-pretzles dice rolling" as opposed to the more sophisticated, elevated characterization or contextualism. And while AD&D might be a gamist game (Ahh, GNS, allowing us to be redundent since 2001), it's a shallow one at that.

And all of this is not necessarily a criticism of this type of game.  Right...

I believe the usual enunciation in these contexts is "Riiiight . . . "

Just to drive home the tone and sarcasm.  ;)

Quote from: SettembriniBecause you can´t. Because they don´t exist.
There is no "modern" in roleplaying.

Oh, sure there are. I've been playing for decades, have enough games to choke a horse and have a variety of games. There are absolutely trends in both game design and production.

But listing them wouldn't only cause you to stick your fingers in your ears and hum. So, again, why? If you want to believe that AD&D is just as modern as, say, Wild Talents, tilt away at your windmills, good sir!

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachPerhaps my favorite quotes from a single paragraph of a single post from that discussion on tBP, and why it's so amusing to me to watch people defend it as "we're just looking at it from a more modern perspective" and similar approaches...

I think it's quite telling to notice the amount of Australians posting to that thread in support of the review. One of which has never read the book! As i've noted elsewhere, the Levites are coming. It's all Pundit's fault really. Him and his silly swine war.

Quote from: One Horse TownI think it's quite telling to notice the amount of Australians posting to that thread in support of the review.

If this particular Australian were not banned from rpg.net, then he would have a few things to say about that review. Which would probably get him banned from rpg.net, but there you go.

John Kim has an excellent article looking at rpg development in terms of art movements, which I think is far more insightful than the rather nonsensical technological view.

As for Johnny Cash, I think he stands up perfectly well today, I feel no great need to categorise him as a period musician.  Good music is timeless, if it weren't we wouldn't still be listening to Hildegaard of Bingen.

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's the thing: He doesn't have to. You can all get your panties in a twist because he panned AD&D, but he doesn't have to look at it from a historical perspective. Looking at A&D with an eye for modern values and tastes is perfectly acceptable.

Seanchai

Interestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia. On the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced". Maybe in production values, but that's not a given either... I believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

Which makes me agree with J. Arcane, I guess.

Quote from: MelanInterestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia.

Very important point. What some people don't understand is that AD&D actually works. Minor revisions aside, it doesn't need special pleading.

I'm sure this is also true for a game I sadly never got to play--Rolemaster. If AD&D is despised today, Rolemaster is simply forgotten. And yet I bought HARP, and reading it I sensed how it was standing on the shoulders of a real giant. I'd love to try RM out... fat chance for that in 2007...

Quote from: MelanI believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

What do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians and/or critics, Lockwood is the most technically proficient, by far. Tramp isn't far behind, and Erol Otus, much as I love him, would be a distant third. DCS...nostalgia value aside, I think I could have done as well as him in many cases, and I know I'm not anywhere near being a classically good artist. DCS's stuff was about the level of fan art. That's not a knock on him, really; he helped define much of the look of early D&D, and was there for them when few others were. But had TSR had the dough to afford the talents of, say, a Frank Frazetta or Richard Corben, both of whom Lockwood's work is reminiscent of, I doubt we'd ever have seen the work of DCS or many of the others.

Quote from: MelanInterestingly enough, I agree: all RPGs should be judged on their own merits, and not historical significance or that persistent bugbear, nostalgia. On the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced". Maybe in production values, but that's not a given either... I believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

I don't think it is an issue of whether games have "advanced" or not.  I think the issue is that tastes have changed a bit since AD&D was first produced.  I have a great sense of nostalgia for D&D/AD&D and frequently yearn for a classic, "old-school" style of gaming, but I can't imagine actually playing AD&D.  Not because there are better, more "advanced" systems these days (though, you might argue there are), but because I've changed.  And my gaming preferences have too.

I dare say I'm not alone.

I find it interesting that a number of Lev's reviews of old D&D material rate it as "Don't waste your money".  And yet, Lev obviously wasted his money.  I guess his preferences have changed over time, too.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhat do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians

You rang?

When it comes to art, technical proficiency means nothing. Seriously. This is modernity. The Renaissance is over. Any old hack can draw a Conan.

Otus is an acquired taste, though. When it comes to fantasy art, I fall for kitsch. Like Michael Komarck.

Non-sexist Elven females--

http://www.komarckart.com/ccg_wl08.html

No art historical claims... it just works very well in game.

Quote from: MelanO the other hand, I disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced".

Would you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Quote from: MelanMaybe in production values, but that's not a given either...

No, it's a given.

Quote from: MelanI believe Trampier, DCS and Otus to be better artists in the classical sense, for instance, than I do Todd Lockwood.

Oh, sure. But art is just a part of product's production value.

Seanchai

QuoteWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

I could agree on that.

What I wouldn't agree with though, is if you suggested this has anytihng to do with Lev's views.

Lev's views have more to do with "RQ GOOD, D&D BAD", and well predate "modern considerations".

It's just one in a billion examples of one man trying to employ the rhetorical trick of suggesting that hsi tastes are an objective, rather than subjective, principle.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityVery important point. What some people don't understand is that AD&D actually works. Minor revisions aside, it doesn't need special pleading.

But scrub boards still work. People buy washing machines, however. Hand drills still work. Slide rules still work. Fountain pens still work. There's a host of things that still work but aren't used anymore because people's preferences have changed. Just pointing out that AD&D can still be played doesn't change the course of the debate...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Ummm...nope.

There seem to be as many people into soemthing like OSRIC as something like Sorcerer.  It would be interesting to see the numbers.

So are those people interested in OSRIC not today's RPG consumer?

This, IMHO, smacks of elitism.  The assumption underlying this kind of statement is that someone who likes games made after 2000, or based on GNS, or less combat focused, or insert-your-criteria-here are "today's RPG consumer" and everyone else who likes AD&D or OSRIC or "old-school" is not "today's consumer."

That's just bullshit.

And if you take that assumption away, and include all those people that like OSRIC as much as people who like MLwM, then what does that tell you about "today's RPG consumer" beyond "Wow, look at all the choice we have now!"

And, taking away that assumption calls into question a subjective critique that says AD&D doesn't live up to "today's standards." Who's standard's - the people who like OSRIC or the people who like DitV?

That's why you have to base your review on whether or not it achieved it's goals - and let the reader determine if those goals are in line with his. At the very least, separate the subjective assesments from the objective ones.

Quote from: James J SkachThere seem to be as many people into soemthing like OSRIC as something like Sorcerer. It would be interesting to see the numbers.

Yeah, because "seems to be" is meaningless.

Quote from: James J SkachSo are those people interested in OSRIC not today's RPG consumer?

Sure. They just don't form the majority.

Quote from: James J SkachThis, IMHO, smacks of elitism.

Are you saying this because it's elitist or because you think you can score points by playing the elitism card? Because, somehow, I don't think you'd be crying, "Elitist!" if I said, "Consumer tastes have changed and so people purchase washing machines instead of scrub boards to do their laundry."

Quote from: James J SkachThe assumption underlying this kind of statement is that someone who likes games made after 2000, or based on GNS, or less combat focused, or insert-your-criteria-here are "today's RPG consumer" and everyone else who likes AD&D or OSRIC or "old-school" is not "today's consumer."

No, that's your assumption.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd, taking away that assumption calls into question a subjective critique that says AD&D doesn't live up to "today's standards." Who's standard's - the people who like OSRIC or the people who like DitV?

The collective's standards.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThe collective's standards.

Seanchai

 The Collective's standards ??  What the hell?

 There is no fricking  "collective" . There is  maybe a buying public - and what majority of them might be interested in buying.

 The average gamer has not even heard of the "GNS" theory stuff. To them  that  is stuff people who spend too much time on the internet talk about.

Which also means that - YES, Gygax does have some wisdom in the original version of D&D that might be worth reading or listening to .


- E.W.C.





 You know what ? Substitute the word "shit"  in the places that I typed "stuff" - I'm still not used to the freedom to cuss freely on a forum.

Quote from: KoltarThere is no fricking  "collective" . There is  maybe a buying public - and what majority of them might be interested in buying.

What do you think the collective that I'm referring to is but the majority of the buying public? The question was, whose standards? My answer was, everyone as a whole.

Quote from: KoltarThe average gamer has not even heard of the "GNS" theory stuff.

And the average gamer isn't playing AD&D. What's your point?

I think maybe you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting Forge models or ideals is the current standard. My idea of what where the current standards lay isn't tied to a particular group or philosophy. The Forge or Forge games have nothing to do with my thought AD&D isn't to the taste of the collective.

Quote from: KoltarWhich also means that - YES, Gygax does have some wisdom in the original version of D&D that might be worth reading or listening to.

Because people haven't heard of GNS, Gygax must have said some things that are wise? Huh?

Seanchai

Quote from: MelanI disagree that "advances in the art of roleplaying" have rendered AD&D outdated - I don't agree with the view that RPGs have "advanced".
 
Which makes me agree with J. Arcane, I guess.

Totally agree. I don't think we are talking scrub boards and washing machines here so much as velcro and buttons. One is newer, but most of us keep our pants up with the other one. :)

I would say that maybe player tastes have changed more than the games have "advanced", but D&D is still the top dog in the RPG world, ain't it? Gary's advice is still relevant because his game is still relevant. Further, I would argue that the changes that have been made to his game have diminished it rather than improved it. Ultimately it's all in the eye of the beholder, maybe even in the eye of the eye of the deep...:D

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard...but D&D is still the top dog in the RPG world, ain't it?...

D&D, but AD&D?

There is a lot of difference between 3e and AD&D. I've seen people make a really good case that 3e shares much more in common with the separate line of D&D Basic/Expert etc. than with AD&D.

As for Gary's thoughts from years and years back there are a lot of people that are relative Nameless Joes who I'd say have better insight. If only for the benefit of years of having seen things play out.

P.S.  You realise that GG loaths to play 3e/3.5, the "top dog", right? It just isn't his bag. In a lot of ways AD&D is really at odds with a lot of what GG has had to say over the years.

Quote from: blakkieD&D, but AD&D?

There is a lot of difference between 3e and AD&D. I've seen people make a really good case that 3e shares much more in common with the separate line of D&D Basic/Expert etc. than with AD&D.

As for Gary's thoughts from years and years back there are a lot of people that are relative Nameless Joes who I'd say have better insight. If only for the benefit of years of having seen things play out.

P.S.  You realise that GG loaths to play 3e/3.5, the "top dog", right? It just isn't his bag. In a lot of ways AD&D is really at odds with a lot of what GG has had to say over the years.

I would argue that D&D 3e resembles AD&D more than basic/expert, but my main point was that overall, it isn't a brand new design, and yet it is still the most played RPG. This is part of why I don't think theres such a thing as an improved state of the art in game design, at least in pure mechanical terms.

I agree with your statement about nameless Joes and the benefit of years of play. I wouldn't say Gary is the last word on gaming, but he wasn't as bad as people make him out to be. I've been on the other side of this fence in my day, but I have to say that rereading those rules as an adult is a different experience than it was when I was 12. Now I feel like I "get it" in a way that evaded me back in the day. Not that I didnt have a blast playing back then, mind you.

Yeah I know Gary don't dig the new stuff, and It's not my thing either. When I run AD&D these days its with 1st ed, pre-unearthed arcana and survival guides. Chalk it up to an aversion to double weapons and feats. That and I'm cheap.:D Nevertheless, it seems to be doing well without my patronage, and its not because it's a cutting edge reinvention of the RPG as we know it.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut scrub boards still work. People buy washing machines, however. Hand drills still work. Slide rules still work. Fountain pens still work. There's a host of things that still work but aren't used anymore because people's preferences have changed. Just pointing out that AD&D can still be played doesn't change the course of the debate...

Seanchai

Oh, so your position is Lev's after all? Thanks for clearing this up.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, so your position is Lev's after all? Thanks for clearing this up.

So your contribution isn't to address the point, but to attack me? Fine.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah, because "seems to be" is meaningless.


Sure. They just don't form the majority.

There are more people playing the top 5 "new" games than are playing AD&D, OSRIC, etc.? There are a majority of RPGers that feel AD&D is not "today's" tastes? You're source would be...?

Quote from: SeanchaiAre you saying this because it's elitist or because you think you can score points by playing the elitism card? Because, somehow, I don't think you'd be crying, "Elitist!" if I said, "Consumer tastes have changed and so people purchase washing machines instead of scrub boards to do their laundry."

The underlying assumption being that AD&D is a washboard - which it is not.  Nor is it the new-fangled large capacity washing machine with computer controlled water temperature.  Someone else made the velcro/buttons analogy which is closer to the point.

I'm claiming "elitism" because there are people in this thread who are saying they understand the buying public so well as to claim they evolved beyond AD&D.  That's either arrogant or ignorant - at least until some data sources are provided.

Quote from: SeanchaiThe collective's standards.

Ummm..yeah...the collective. Your statistics and information on what "the collective" thinks is from what source again?

And lest I'm misconstrued, it's fine to have this opinion.  It's not fine to pass it off as some sort of objective fact.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI would argue that D&D 3e resembles AD&D more than basic/expert, but my main point was that overall, it isn't a brand new design, and yet it is still the most played RPG.

It isn't a brand new design, but there's plenty that's changed or is new. For example, armor, thieves skills, psionics, monsters having a standard set of attributes and skills, bonus classification, magic item classification, etc..

Of course, AD&D and AD&D 2e were still the most popular RPG of their day.

Seanchai

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardI would argue that D&D 3e resembles AD&D more than basic/expert....

Well you can take that up with others (try Searching, I think Setti was the one talking about it). But I will say that....

Quote...but my main point was that overall, it isn't a brand new design, and yet it is still the most played RPG. This is part of why I don't think theres such a thing as an improved state of the art in game design, at least in pure mechanical terms.

It is a hugely ripped apart and revamped, retooled, and redone set of rules. It kept a some iconic flavour (1st level MM, 3rd level FB/LB, using a d20, 6 stats, the PHB/DMG/MM trilogy of books, most of the basic roles of the races), inspite of some of these not fitting that well anymore. But largely it was a ground up rewrite. Oh sure some pieces of the mechanics made it through very close to intact, like grappling...which remains a clusterhump.

How about Skills? 2e's are only vaguely comparible. Feats, going just a wee bit further than AD&D Weapon Specialization and a few of the class abilities rolled together, don't you think? You don't like them? *shrug* However they allow a flexibility and lot of things to be reflected in the mechanics that just didn't happen with the AD&D rules.

Then there is the writing. Simply far more coherent without a loads and loads of crap that nearly everyone thows out. Polearm vs. polearm chart anyone? The polish is top notch.

Washboard and washing machine? Well I'll say one of those old washing machines my grandma used when I was a kid with the swirling tub and the wringer (that'd eat your fingers if you weren't careful) and it needed a rinse tub on the other side and then you flipped the runoff tray underneath the wringer and ran the clothes back through again to get the rinse water out and then put it in a little standup spinner to get some more water out before taking them out to hang them on the line.  Compared to the AEG high effiency frontloader we've got now that'll do 'er all in one pass and has 3 settings of spinout at the end that results in quite dry clothes.  Sure the physical process remains roughly the same (except the wringer/spinner part is all replaced with centrifical force for all 3 stages) but it is one hell of a difference in practice from the POV of the person washing clothes.

QuoteI wouldn't say Gary is the last word on gaming, but he wasn't as bad as people make him out to be.

Sadly a good deal of what he has to say certainly is...and then there is trying to figure out WTF he was saying. :) There are some things though that he had figured out and I don't mean to totally belittle him (and his comrades of the time). Of course it is very hard to tell when he's being serious and he'll grossly overstate or say outlandish things just 'cause. It's the kind of guy he is.  EDIT: For better and for worse.

P.S. I first read 1e when I was an adult. Or at least of voting age. :)

Quote from: James J SkachThere are more people playing the top 5 "new" games than are playing AD&D, OSRIC, etc.? There are a majority of RPGers that feel AD&D is not "today's" tastes? You're source would be...?

Sales data.

I'm assuming you disagree. What's your source, should you decide to claim that the folks playing AD&D, OSRIC, etc., are anything other than a minority?

Quote from: James J SkachI'm claiming "elitism" because there are people in this thread who are saying they understand the buying public so well as to claim they evolved beyond AD&D. That's either arrogant or ignorant - at least until some data sources are provided.

It might be arrogant or ignorant, but it's not elitist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist).

Quote from: James J SkachAnd lest I'm misconstrued, it's fine to have this opinion.  It's not fine to pass it off as some sort of objective fact.

And your countering arguments contain...what then? I mean, unless you're willing to commit to saying your assertions are facts, you've really got nothing solid on which to base your case, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSales data.

I'm assuming you disagree. What's your source, should you decide to claim that the folks playing AD&D, OSRIC, etc., are anything other than a minority?

I'm asking for you to point me to the sales data that includes the free downloads of OSRIC, or the secondhand purchases of AD&D.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt might be arrogant or ignorant, but it's not elitist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/elitist).

Really?  It seems to fit the second definition fine - at the very least be in  proximity.  If you can't see that, I will agree to disagree in an effort not to get side tracked in a definition war.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd your countering arguments contain...what then? I mean, unless you're willing to commit to saying your assertions are facts, you've really got nothing solid on which to base your case, right?

I've never passed them off as other than opinion - actually more simply questioning the argument provided being fact. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that it's my opinion.  I've asked for data that somehow undergirds the manner in which someone knows the tastes and feelings of "today's RPG consumer" other than as anecdotes.

I'd go so far as to say that it's not even my opinion.  I'd say I haven't formed an opinion as the lack of evidence (I'd be doubtful you could get the kind of data necessary to enforce one viewpoint or the other) doesn't allow me to base it on any facts. It certainly doesn't allow for the level of certainty and veil of objectivism that gets tossed around. That's all I'm saying.

As one who actually nteracts with the "Buying Public" on a daily basis , I can tell you that the majority of gamers are still playing Dungeons & Dragons or some version of it. If they are involved in two or more gaming groups  - one of them is playing some version of D&D.

 I don't happen to be one of them, I play GURPS  (as a lot of you have figured out by now) However  I can't deny the numbers I see at my store ...and at our nearest competing game store.

 The majority of gamers have never heard of "Dogs In the Vineyard" . If I mentioned that title  they'd probably say "Nope, never heard of it ... is it D20 ? Or like D&D?"  Some might ask : "Is it like World of Darkness?"

 Thats the reality. Dungeons & Dragons (Any version) is the top seller and the game that most people know.  Vampire /World of Darkness is a close second place.
GURPS, HERO system,  Palladium/RIFTS, and Warhammer FRP battle it out on a rotating basis for 3rd and 4th places.

 Look at ther list I posted in the other thread for top selling games.  Its mostly accurate.

 To get back to original point or topic.... so Gygax strayed from what he originally wrote in the initial D&D books.
 So what.
 Big Deal.
 A creator or writer straying along the way after their first really good idea happens all the fucking time. That doesn't lessen the validity of what he said.

 I have no stake in defending Gygax -  I don't even own the original  D&D books.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarAs one who actually nteracts with the "Buying Public" on a daily basis , I can tell you that the majority of gamers are still playing Dungeons & Dragons or some version of it. If they are involved in two or more gaming groups  - one of them is playing some version of D&D.

 I don't happen to be one of them, I play GURPS  (as a lot of you have figured out by now) However  I can't deny the numbers I see at my store ...and at our nearest competing game store.

 The majority of gamers have never heard of "Dogs In the Vineyard" . If I mentioned that title  they'd probably say "Nope, never heard of it ... is it D20 ? Or like D&D?"  Some might ask : "Is it like World of Darkness?"

 Thats the reality. Dungeons & Dragons (Any version) is the top seller and the game that most people know.  Vampire /World of Darkness is a close second place.
GURPS, HERO system,  Palladium/RIFTS, and Warhammer FRP battle it out on a rotating basis for 3rd and 4th places.

 Look at ther list I posted in the other thread for top selling games.  Its mostly accurate.

 To get back to original point or topic.... so Gygax strayed from what he originally wrote in the initial D&D books.
 So what.
 Big Deal.
 A creator or writer straying along the way after their first really good idea happens all the fucking time. That doesn't lessen the validity of what he said.

 I have no stake in defending Gygax -  I don't even own the original  D&D books.

- E.W.C.

To defend the other side - we're specifically talking about AD&D (at least I thought we were).  Having played every version (Basic, AD&D, 2nd ed, 3.X) I can tell you that the last is as different from AD&D as it is alike.

I'm trying to point out that there were quite a few people who still played AD&D or OSRIC if you go by anecdotal evidence.  I remember when 3.X came out that a bunch of people said "forget it, we'll keep playing AD&D" and I know there was quite a bit of interest on OSRIC.

Does that translate into any sort of claim with validity beyond my memory?  Nope. But it does make me question "collective opinion of today's RPG consumer" as it seems not to take into account this segment of the community; or at the very least dminish it's existence.

Quote from: blakkieIt is a hugely ripped apart and revamped, retooled, and redone set of rules. It kept a some iconic flavour (1st level MM, 3rd level FB/LB, using a d20, 6 stats, the PHB/DMG/MM trilogy of books, most of the basic roles of the races), inspite of some of these not fitting that well anymore. But largely it was a ground up rewrite. Oh sure some pieces of the mechanics made it through very close to intact, like grappling...which remains a clusterhump.

Well, there are some changes that might even be better (like the way they do THAC) but it still seems to me like all the major stuff is there from previous editions (like grappling, alas). Enough so that I don't really see much difference except when we get into stuff like...

Quote from: blakkieHow about Skills? 2e's are only vaguely comparible. Feats, going just a wee bit further than AD&D Weapon Specialization and a few of the class abilities rolled together, don't you think? You don't like them? *shrug* However they allow a flexibility and lot of things to be reflected in the mechanics that just didn't happen with the AD&D rules.

I'm of the opinion these days that secondary skills are preferable to proficiencies. I also don't think the abstract nature of AD&D combat is better served with lots of specific types of combat options and manuevers. I would say that combat is LESS flexible with these things. Before all these tactics were outlined with rules, one had to roleplay it out. Similarly, if I'm a cobbler, why should I have to roll to make shoes? Once upon a time I wanted rules for everything too. Of course that leads to...

Quote from: blakkiePolearm vs. polearm chart anyone?

Not a fan of that or the weapons vs armor type stuff. I think here is where we can see a definite split in consumer tastes, though. The added crunch and funky rules of the older editions of the game seemed to support a more medieval/dark ages style of play, where modern crunch seems to be geared to a more cinematic playstyle and perhaps, ironically, a wargamier type of game. Nevertheless, the original game is still in there. The basic play of the game is fundamentally the same even if chargen is more involved and combat has different bells and whistles.

Gary's writing is probably a matter of taste (and I'm talkin' rules here, not "Gord the Rogue"), but I think I could tell when he was winking at us even as a kid. At least, I knew that I wasn't in an adversarial relationship with the players even when he told us to "kill the bastards". ;) He does say in the forward to the DMG to throw out the rules you dont like and play it your way, even if he has said contradictory things since. That's still the best gaming advice around. I think he was right more often than he was wrong. Frankly, I wish games today had more mad genius' like Gary writing colorful rules than illiterate fluff propping up mediocre settings.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm asking for you to point me to the sales data that includes the free downloads of OSRIC, or the secondhand purchases of AD&D.

I don't have any.

I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed, however; I can point to the sales data of games like AD&D and OSRIC. For example:

D&D Players Handbook: #3,237 in Books on Amazon.com
Castles & Crusades Players Handbook: #181,194 in Books on Amazon.com
Hackmaster: Official Players Handbook: #323,617 in Books on Amazon.com

So, again, where's your data?

Quote from: James J SkachReally?  It seems to fit the second definition fine - at the very least be in  proximity.

No, it's not. And if you have to qualify your statement, you know it's not, too.

Quote from: James J SkachI've asked for data that somehow undergirds the manner in which someone knows the tastes and feelings of "today's RPG consumer" other than as anecdotes.

Go to your FLGS, thumb through the new releases, and you'll have a hands-on view of the tastes of today's RPG consumer. Then go to the bin where they sell second hand copies of AD&D books, flip through one, and you'll have an idea of the gulf between those products and the ones being produced today.

Seanchai

Quote...but it still seems to me like all the major stuff is there from previous editions...

Yes, a lot of the flavour is there. They did an amazing job of preserving the brand identity. But you start looking at the actual mechanics there is a world of difference. Come to think of it maybe a better analogy is the the new VW Bettle vs. the old.

QuoteI also don't think the abstract nature of AD&D combat is better served with lots of specific types of combat options and manuevers.

See AD&D is all over the place here. It has all this detail crap in there but doesn't really cover much of anything that players usually want to try to do. Lots of rules but just not any particularly useful to giving any sort of base to work off of to figure out rulings. So you ended up with a bunch house rules that had little-to-no overarching guidelines.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardFrankly, I wish games today had more mad genius' like Gary writing colorful rules than illiterate fluff propping up mediocre settings.

It is out there if you look for it and some of it fortunately doesn't suffer from the same level "stream of conciousness" disorganization and split-personality (and some does, or worse).  That's really where I think Gygax falls down. He just isn't that organized a person and lacks the inclination organize his rules. He had these cool concepts that he put into some advice pieces but it didn't occur to him, he didn't understand how to, and/or was unable to due to other external pressures mould rules to support the ideas...or at least not undercut them. In no smart part I suspect because in the end he doesn't really give a hoot about the rules. "Here are some rules *shrug* whatever."

So you've got this somewhat uneven, though at times insightful advice and then rules that don't fit it.

P.S. And no, figuring out when Gary is "winking" isn't even close to straightforward.  He's a mischevious, compulsive shit disturber. :stirthepot: I suspect he himself isn't always entirely clear on when he's being over-the-top or how much.

Colonel Hardisson, on art:

QuoteWhat do you mean by "in the classical sense"? I think if you showed examples of any of the artists to art historians and/or critics, Lockwood is the most technically proficient, by far. Tramp isn't far behind, and Erol Otus, much as I love him, would be a distant third. ...

Unfortunately, I don't have any links handy to previous discussions (and since they are on ENWorld, I probably wouldn't find them anyhow), but in short, it is my considered opinion that art doesn't become good art just because an artist has mastered his technique. It becomes good art by being evocative and/or iconic; by its ability to generate interest and emotion. See, for example, the difference between Frazetta and his imitators - Frazetta is all about vehemence and raw power; his paintings are often just swirls of colours, much less detailed than a typical Vallejo piece. Yet Vallejo feels posed and artificial, despite more attention to the small stuff. In this respect, I consider some of early gaming art - the aforementioned artists, as well as Professor M.A.R. Barker - excellent indeed.

David Sutherland is an interesting case. It is clear he wasn't good on the technical side, even if he advanced a lot, and demonstrates better ability on his colour pieces. It also has to be taken into account that Dave literally had to crank out art on a very short notice, usually a few hours per piece or so (I think Frank Mentzer mentioned this?). But why I consider him great is that what he depicts is D&D. Slightly comic book-like, with adventurers advancing in tunnels, wizards shooting spells at monsters, or looking for treasure - completely iconic. More iconic than the iconic characters of 3e, in any case. ;)

Seanchai:

QuoteWould you feel better if it was stated more like this: "AD&D is no longer consistant with the expectations of today's RPG consumer"?

Mostly, yes, in more ways than you would think. AD&D is indeed inconsistent with what today's game buying consumers want to see. It is in the line of expectations, however, with a lot more RPG players - just about all respectable estimates I have seen on the matter seem tu suggest that there is a wide "passive" hobby out there, whose participants are happy to play their games without buying any new materials or even coming online. My anecdotal evidence also lines up with this point -- of the gamers I have played with, only a few visit message boards, even fewer buy anything except the odd dice or miniature, but a lot more run campaigns with out of print rulesets (usually AD&D 2nd edition or M.A.G.U.S., a Hungarian FRPG).

All in all, I would say that for a game that has been out of print for almost seven years (for 2nd edition AD&D) or eighteen years (for 1st edition AD&D and various basic editions), A/D&D has proven surprisingly resilient; much more so than could be explained if the technology argument held water. That it can support sizable and active fan sites (e.g. Dragonsfoot, and maybe 2e-oriented sites I don't usually visit) and make small-press efforts viable is IMO adequate proof that there are a lot of people actually playing the damned thing. Again, this is a game that saw no support for several years, isn't available in game stores and doesn't have dedicated publications.

Regarding your (and others') argument that games are analogous to technology, I disagree. Technology - mechanics - is only a part of a game. These aspects can be made better by utilising well-tried design principles. I certainly wouldn't argue about AD&D's mechanical superiority vs., say, 3.* D&D. Ascending AC, consistent rules and the like are objectively more intuitive than the alternatives.

Yet a game is more: it is a set of assumptions about gameplay, it is a way of how the individual bits interplay, it is the kind of experience that using the rules generates. It is also the flexibility of the ruleset; the ability to fine-tune them without causing serious damage to the whole (this may be an advantage in highly subjective games like D&D). It is also about writing: communicating ideas to the user, making him interested and excited about using the game at the table, and supporting him, above all, with ideas.

It is my point that AD&D, a mechanically outdated and - yes - inferior game works so well in other departments that it could survive to this day without support, stand successfully against second-tier RPGs and, again, support an active community - who are, of course, only a part of the number of its players. That's not bad, not bad at all.

Quote from: SeanchaiI don't have any.

I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed, however; I can point to the sales data of games like AD&D and OSRIC. For example:

D&D Players Handbook: #3,237 in Books on Amazon.com
Castles & Crusades Players Handbook: #181,194 in Books on Amazon.com
Hackmaster: Official Players Handbook: #323,617 in Books on Amazon.com

So, again, where's your data?

Among the four things that jump out at me when I look at this... First, you've listed D&D to show, what, changes in taste?  I've said before that I don't think 3.X is any more like than AD&D than it is similar - but it it similar.  So tastes, if they have changed, have not changed so dramatically.

Second, I don't see AD&D or OSRIC. Are you using C&C and Hackmaster to show old tastes? I mean, I suppose it tells us something, though I'm not sure what.

Third, how about the top ten list (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4780) from this very site? If you weed through, depending on how joe combines a few things or doesn't, you get Basic D&D as 2nd (or 4 and 6), GURPS 3rd ed (3rd not 4th) at 6 (or 7), and C&C in the runners-up. Now I will admit, up front, that this list does not include AD&D or OSRIC.  But if you want to use "similar" games in your amazon source, it's fair to use them for this.

Fourth, I dont' have any. I've stated before I don't even know if any exists to support either side of this debate. I have anecdotal stuff that makes me doubt the position asserted.  And that's the point, really. You say "I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed." Well, yes, you do. Or the person who claimed that AD&D is not longer within the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" does.  Because that's an assertion of fact.  I didn't make that statement, I expressed doubt in it's validity based on my experiences. Given that, I think it's perfectly logical to ask for evidence of said assertion.

Quote from: SeanchaiNo, it's not. And if you have to qualify your statement, you know it's not, too.

Let me be less polite - it does fit the second definintion, so your citation is full of crap. See how much more confrontational that is? I'm trying not to be - especially because, as I've stated before, I'm not sure what to make of this "today's RPG consumer" stuff.  So I qualify my statements.  It doesn't mean I know I'm wrong and defending a bad position.  It means two things.  I'm unsure and I'm trying to be polite.

Quote from: SeanchaiGo to your FLGS, thumb through the new releases, and you'll have a hands-on view of the tastes of today's RPG consumer. Then go to the bin where they sell second hand copies of AD&D books, flip through one, and you'll have an idea of the gulf between those products and the ones being produced today.

I do, from time to time when the chaos of life allows.  I'm blessed in that I have an FLGS (though not as L as I'd like) that is spectacular. This guy carries stuff that's so unheard of it's not funny. Huge bins (in the middle of the quite impressive space for an FLGS) full of stuff I've never even heard of - much of it old and/or out of print. He even has an auction twice a year.  People bring in the stuff they no longer want and auction it off for credit in the store (at least that's the way it used to work, been a while since I've been able to attend).  In fact I'm missing one today due to my daughter's illness.  These are people getting rid of "old taste" stuff, yes?  And the people bidding?  They are acquiring old taste stuff.  The place is a madhouse. People come from all over. So bringing up my F"L"GS is not the right direction.

And one last thing about your assertion.  The products might have changed, but not enough to say that "today's RPG consumer" is somehow that much different than the one from 20 years ago - not altogether. And yes, that's another qualifier in attempt to find some middle ground. Have tastes changed at all? Only a fool would disagree. Have they changed so much as to make the very existence of AD&D outdated and out of the realm of "today's RPG consumer?" On that our opinions appear to diverge. The facts have yet to be sorted through.

Quote from: MelanBut why I consider him great is that what he depicts is D&D. Slightly comic book-like, with adventurers advancing in tunnels, wizards shooting spells at monsters, or looking for treasure - completely iconic. More iconic than the iconic characters of 3e, in any case. ;)

I just don't see it. I was buying those books back when they were first being published, and I distinctly remember being disappointed at how poor the art was. This was in comparison with books of comparable price. And I was just a 13 year old kid at the time. Hell, there were any number of comic books I was reading at the time, priced below fifty cents, that had art that blew away anything in any D&D book of the time. It just didn't matter all that much to me that the TSR art depicted dungeoncrawls and the like. I kept wondering why they didn't get better artists to depict those dungeoncrawls.

Quote from: blakkieYes, a lot of the flavour is there. They did an amazing job of preserving the brand identity. But you start looking at the actual mechanics there is a world of difference. Come to think of it maybe a better analogy is the the new VW Bettle vs. the old.

The more things change, the more they stay the same in the case of D&D though. THAC is mathematically the same as THACO, The saving throw system is a little funky looking now, but you still use it the same basic way. When you compare it to all the games out there, it looks more like AD&D than anything else. Granted, it's a different enough game now that I prefer 1st ed.

Quote from: blakkieSee AD&D is all over the place here. It has all this detail crap in there but doesn't really cover much of anything that players usually want to try to do. Lots of rules but just not any particularly useful to giving any sort of base to work off of to figure out rulings. So you ended up with a bunch house rules that had little-to-no overarching guidelines.

Well, I think thats because players of the past wanted to do different things than todays players. Those Lake Geneva guys must have really wanted to win the cold war of polearm superiority, hehe. Those were gamers inspired by "appendix N" and wargames, rather than Xena and Dragonball Z. I think the plethora of rules and tables WAS the base to figure out rulings.

Quote from: blakkieIt is out there if you look for it and some of it fortunately doesn't suffer from the same level "stream of conciousness" disorganization and split-personality (and some does, or worse). That's really where I think Gygax falls down. He just isn't that organized a person and lacks the inclination organize his rules. He had these cool concepts that he put into some advice pieces but it didn't occur to him, he didn't understand how to, and/or was unable to due to other external pressures mould rules to support the ideas...or at least not undercut them. In no smart part I suspect because in the end he doesn't really give a hoot about the rules. "Here are some rules *shrug* whatever."

So you've got this somewhat uneven, though at times insightful advice and then rules that don't fit it.

I have to disagree with your assessement of Gygax "falling down". I think the Players Handbook and the Monster Manual are organised just fine. The Dungeon Masters Guide is more baroque, perhaps. That's the nature of DMing though. The index helps, but it's the nature of the beast that there are bits hidden in odd spots, (checking to see if your character is "keen-eared" for example) especially considering that the players were not supposed to read it. If it was too well organised, the players would find ways to lawyer the game to death after all.  

In the end, I suppose Gary's advice is more or less insightful depending on the kind of game you want to play. I'll grant you some of the rules don't neccessarily fit the advice, and where that was the case back in the day, we scrapped the rules and played in the spirit of the game as we saw it. Some folks took that one step further and made their own games, but really the gameplay of Runequest, T&T, Arduin, etc was only mechanically different from AD&D. In any case, I think the 1st ed DMG should be required reading for all gamemasters, even if you dont agree with Gary, he went there first and the lessons of those days are still valid.

Quote from: blakkieAnd no, figuring out when Gary is "winking" isn't even close to straightforward. He's a mischevious, compulsive shit disturber.  I suspect he himself isn't always entirely clear on when he's being over-the-top or how much.

Well, you may have a point there. Maybe that's why I find his rules and gaming commentary to be facinating reading. :D

Quote from: MelanMostly, yes, in more ways than you would think. AD&D is indeed inconsistent with what today's game buying consumers want to see. It is in the line of expectations, however, with a lot more RPG players - just about all respectable estimates I have seen on the matter seem tu suggest that there is a wide "passive" hobby out there, whose participants are happy to play their games without buying any new materials or even coming online.

I agree with that—I just don't agree that they're playing AD&D and other games from the 70s and 80s. Or that the those who are playing those games outweigh the segment of the gaming population that's actively purchasing and playing today's games.

Quote from: MelanThat it can support sizable and active fan sites (e.g. Dragonsfoot, and maybe 2e-oriented sites I don't usually visit) and make small-press efforts viable is IMO adequate proof that there are a lot of people actually playing the damned thing.

I think people are playing older games—I just don't think they're the majority. And if we're using collective terms to refer to the majority...

Quote from: MelanTechnology - mechanics - is only a part of a game. These aspects can be made better by utilising well-tried design principles. I certainly wouldn't argue about AD&D's mechanical superiority vs., say, 3.* D&D. Ascending AC, consistent rules and the like are objectively more intuitive than the alternatives.

I'm not trying to make that argument. I believe that 3e is mechancially superior to AD&D, but that's just a personal opinion.

I used scrub boards, hand drills, et al., as an example because scrub boards still work just fine. They still get clothes clean. Hand drills still make holes. I'm not saying the technology of scrub boards and hand drills is any less functional, just that people have moved on for other reasons. For example, they take too long to work or require too much effort.

AD&D and other older games are still prefectly playable—(We played the Pacesetter edition of Chill not too long ago)—but I'm saying they're not to consumers' tastes for reasons other than strict playability.

Quote from: MelanYet a game is more: it is a set of assumptions about gameplay, it is a way of how the individual bits interplay, it is the kind of experience that using the rules generates.

That's true, but those are basically extrinisic to the product purchased.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachFirst, you've listed D&D to show, what, changes in taste? I've said before that I don't think 3.X is any more like than AD&D than it is similar - but it it similar. So tastes, if they have changed, have not changed so dramatically.

3e is pretty different from AD&D. For example, it's core mechanic is much, much more unifed (a trait of more modern games). Also, I'm not just talking about mechanics. The production values and presentation of the two products is vastly different.

Quote from: James J SkachAre you using C&C and Hackmaster to show old tastes?

Yeah. These (and other products) are banking on similarity to AD&D to sell products.

Quote from: James J SkachYou say "I don't need it to demonstrate that tastes have changed." Well, yes, you do. Or the person who claimed that AD&D is not longer within the tastes of "today's RPG consumer" does.  Because that's an assertion of fact.  I didn't make that statement, I expressed doubt in it's validity based on my experiences. Given that, I think it's perfectly logical to ask for evidence of said assertion.

I absolutely agree in principle. But in this case, you're basically asking me to prove that the sky is blue. If you want proof that the sky is blue, just look up. It's right there for anybody to see.

Quote from: James J SkachLet me be less polite - it does fit the second definintion, so your citation is full of crap.

This has nothing to do with membership in any group. It's about products and people's tastes. I suggest that if you feel this about people themselves, it's because you're taking it personally.

Quote from: James J SkachSo bringing up my F"L"GS is not the right direction.

But it is. Do as I suggested: Take an old A&D book from the second hand bin, physically juxtapose it with a new release, and flip through them. Compare mechanics, presentation, layout, etc..

Or try this: Take the AD&D and walk among the shelves for products released in the last decade that share mechanical and physical characteristics with the older product.

I've got my old PHB and DMG right here. They're full of tiny type, dense text, not much in the way of art, mismatched art, page after page after page of charts, scattered mechanics, restrictions and exceptions, etc.. It's just not what people expect from an RPG these days...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai3e is pretty different from AD&D. For example, it's core mechanic is much, much more unifed (a trait of more modern games). Also, I'm not just talking about mechanics. The production values and presentation of the two products is vastly different.

I'm more than familiar with the differences.  I've said in this thread that they are about as alike as they are dissimilar. Classes?  Levels? Armor Class? Some of the mechanics underneath have changed (THAC0 etc) but much of the feel is the same.  As for the unified mechanic - some see it as a good thing, others not so much. I mean, people have talked about Burning Wheel with some zeal, and it seems to have, from the little I know, different approaches for different resolution.  Is that today's tastes or old ones?

Quote from: SeanchaiI absolutely agree in principle. But in this case, you're basically asking me to prove that the sky is blue. If you want proof that the sky is blue, just look up. It's right there for anybody to see.

Yes, I see. You agree that people should back up assertions with facts or admit it's opinion...unless it's your opinion.  You believe that your opinion is as factual as "the sky is blue." You are obviously mistaken about your opinion. It's right there for anyone to see, though the sky is nice and blue today.

Quote from: SeanchaiThis has nothing to do with membership in any group. It's about products and people's tastes. I suggest that if you feel this about people themselves, it's because you're taking it personally.

It's about people who claim that there is some objective standard called "today's RPG consumer" when discussing matter of taste with respect to RPGs. The implication is that if you do not share those tastes, you are not in the group "today's RPG consumer."  Sprinkle that with dashes of "mere beer-and-pretzels roll the dice" comments, and you get elitism. I suggest the fact that you don't see that makes you unable to comment on other people's taste.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut it is. Do as I suggested: Take an old A&D book from the second hand bin, physically juxtapose it with a new release, and flip through them. Compare mechanics, presentation, layout, etc..

Or try this: Take the AD&D and walk among the shelves for products released in the last decade that share mechanical and physical characteristics with the older product.

I've got my old PHB and DMG right here. They're full of tiny type, dense text, not much in the way of art, mismatched art, page after page after page of charts, scattered mechanics, restrictions and exceptions, etc.. It's just not what people expect from an RPG these days

OK...got my Basic...got my AD&D...got my 2nd edition...got my 3.5...and...

OK, you've lost me here.  Have you been arguing all along that the products are different? Why would I disagree? What's that got to do with defining some group called "today's RPG consumer" and then claiming that you know what the tastes are of that group and then using that as a justification to review a book in a certain way?

Because, ya know, saying it's a fact that a game written in 1979 is different from a game written in 2000 is like saying the sky is blue. Congratulations on that. If you're saying that automatically somehow extrapolates to claims on the tastes of some group called "today's RPG consumer," well, on that we obviously differ in opinion.

And given all the doubts about Amazon rankings, since you quoted some...

AD&D DMG: 289,805
Fiend Folio: 168,509
Monter Manual II: 69,224
Wilderness Survival Guide: 144,508

And:

DitV: 4,033,142
Burning Wheel: 584,706
Sorcerer: 1,011,973

Draw your own conclusions about the tastes of "today's RPG consumer.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd given all the doubts about Amazon rankings, since you quoted some...

AD&D DMG: 289,805
Fiend Folio: 168,509
Monter Manual II: 69,224
Wilderness Survival Guide: 144,508

And:

DitV: 4,033,142
Burning Wheel: 584,706
Sorcerer: 1,011,973

Draw your own conclusions about the tastes of "today's RPG consumer.

I can't speak to the others and their arguments, but, again, I'm not suggesting Forge or indie games are necessarily the model of consumer tastes today. They certainly contain the elements I'm referring to, but they're not what I have in mind when discussing these things...

And ou might do better with these direct comparisons:

AD&D Player's Handbook: #60,892 in Books, $1.92 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Player's Handbook: #3,256 in Books, $15.69 cheapest purchase price

AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #295,214, $2.90 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #5,117 in Books, $17.37 cheapest purchase price

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI can't speak to the others and their arguments, but, again, I'm not suggesting Forge or indie games are necessarily the model of consumer tastes today. They certainly contain the elements I'm referring to, but they're not what I have in mind when discussing these things...

And ou might do better with these direct comparisons:

AD&D Player's Handbook: #60,892 in Books, $1.92 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Player's Handbook: #3,256 in Books, $15.69 cheapest purchase price

AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #295,214, $2.90 cheapest purchase price
3.5 D&D Dungeon Master's Guide: #5,117 in Books, $17.37 cheapest purchase price

The most amusing part of this I can't prove.  But man could I predict what you were going to respond.

So the evidence would be that AD&D is different from 3.X and that means you (the collective, not you specific) can make some claim about "today's RPG consumer?" That seems a bit of a stretch to me - whcih is why I was going for games that seemed far more different then AD&D, they just happened to be Forgeries.

I had a response to this written yesterday morning just after the one with the Amazon.com figures, but it got eaten by the site crash.

Quote from: James J SkachYou agree that people should back up assertions with facts or admit it's opinion...unless it's your opinion.

No. Moreover, I did back up my assertions with facts.

Quote from: James J SkachThe implication is that if you do not share those tastes, you are not in the group "today's RPG consumer."

So the statement "Americans buy color TVs" is elitist because some Americans have purchased black and white TVs and the implication is that if you bought the latter, you're not American? That's stupid.

Quote from: James J SkachSprinkle that with dashes of "mere beer-and-pretzels roll the dice" comments, and you get elitism. I suggest the fact that you don't see that makes you unable to comment on other people's taste.

So you are taking this personally. I thought so.

First, I never once mentioned "mere beer-and-pretzels" anything. Second, I don't see it because it's not elitism.

Quote from: James J SkachHave you been arguing all along that the products are different? Why would I disagree?

You tell me.

Quote from: James J SkachWhat's that got to do with defining some group called "today's RPG consumer" and then claiming that you know what the tastes are of that group and then using that as a justification to review a book in a certain way?

People buy color TVs. How can you tell? Walk into a showroom and look at the models they offer. They're all color. Saying "People's tastes in electronics today run to color TVs" is a no-brainer. Anybody who bothered to walk into a showroom and look around could see that.

Given that, if I said, "Hey, I know of a TV for sale," people would reasonably expect it to be a color TV.

If they asked if it was a good TV, I could just as reasonably say, "No, it's black and white."

Now we all know that somebody somewhere likes black and white TVs. We know that some people still have and use black and white TVs. If you look, you can probably find them for sale somewhere. Black and white TVs are still perfectly functional. In their day, they were the height of technology.

The fourth paragraph does not invalid paragraphs one through three.

Now, again, if when asked if the black and white TV was good, it would also be perfectly valid of me to say, "For it's day, it was a great little TV."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI had a response to this written yesterday morning just after the one with the Amazon.com figures, but it got eaten by the site crash.

I feel your pain.  I had a thesis prepared for Pundit in an Off-Topic thread that got eaten. In fact, this very response has now been held up by a system problem. Go figure.  Fortunately I saved it ;)

Quote from: SeanchaiNo. Moreover, I did back up my assertions with facts.

I'm sorry.  I seem to have missed those facts. If you just post which number posts they are , I'll go back and look at them again.

Quote from: SeanchaiSo the statement "Americans buy color TVs" is elitist because some Americans have purchased black and white TVs and the implication is that if you bought the latter, you're not American? That's stupid.

No, but saying something like "today's TV consumer's tastes are for large, flat screen plasma screens with HD tuners" and then reviewing a 32" cable-ready color TV as a piece of crap because it's not in line with "today's TV consumer." Which is, I believe, how this entire discussion began, no?

Quote from: SeanchaiSo you are taking this personally. I thought so.

I know I can't convince you that I'm not taking it personally, no matter how much I tell you otherwise.  I mean, I don't play AD&D anymore (not that I would necessarily turn down a game if offered), and I can't think of what else would make me take it presonally...

Quote from: SeanchaiFirst, I never once mentioned "mere beer-and-pretzels" anything. Second, I don't see it because it's not elitism.

I'm honestly sorry if it seemed I was saying you made that comment.  It was from some people discussing the review of AD&D in another forum.

Quote from: SeanchaiPeople buy color TVs. How can you tell? Walk into a showroom and look at the models they offer. They're all color. Saying "People's tastes in electronics today run to color TVs" is a no-brainer. Anybody who bothered to walk into a showroom and look around could see that.

Given that, if I said, "Hey, I know of a TV for sale," people would reasonably expect it to be a color TV.

If they asked if it was a good TV, I could just as reasonably say, "No, it's black and white."

Now we all know that somebody somewhere likes black and white TVs. We know that some people still have and use black and white TVs. If you look, you can probably find them for sale somewhere. Black and white TVs are still perfectly functional. In their day, they were the height of technology.

The fourth paragraph does not invalid paragraphs one through three.

Now, again, if when asked if the black and white TV was good, it would also be perfectly valid of me to say, "For it's day, it was a great little TV."

I'm not sure what this has to do with..well...

The flaw in your logic resides in your analogies.  In every case, you've chosen products that, if taken at face value, seem to support your assertion. However, your analogies do not represent the situation.

Your assumption is that "today's RPG consumer" would look at AD&D and say "hand drill," "washing board," or "black & white TV." Your assertion is that it's plainly clear the "today's RPG consumer" prefers something different. I'm asking you to provide something other than "AD&D and D&D 3.X are different products." That is like saying the sky is blue. This doesn't even bring into the discussion the assumption that AD&D and D&D 3.X are so different that it proves something about "today's RPG consumer."

Instead, I'm asking for some sort of proof that "today's RPG consumer" does or does not include a significant representation of people who choose, currently, to play AD&D (and similar games) or at the very least don't see it as a hand drill, washboard, or B&W TV. If it does, then it's not correct to say that AD&D is no longer in line with "today's RPG consumer." If it does not - by all means, make the claim.

I've presented the reasons why I doubt the claim that it doesn't - Amazon statistics, anecdotal evidence like the interest in OSRIC, etc. However, what you've provided is, in addition to Amazon Statistics, "AD&D and D&D are different" and "well everyone knows we all prefer color TV's." Both of which, while true, do nothing to move us closer to an understanding of any broad comment on the tastes of "today's RPG consumer;" certainly no more or less than anecdotal experience.

Contrary to your belief that I'm taking this personally, I'd really love to get some numbers on this and put the discussion to rest, one way or the other.  I've seen it lamented any number of times here and in other forums that one of the problems is that people just don't have good statistics. I mean, could we use the number of people playing certain "types" of games online? What statistics are available that could help us move beyond this with some basis in fact as opposed to opinion?

Without that, we have differing opinions - which is all well and good as long as presented as such.

Quote from: James J SkachI seem to have missed those facts. If you just post which number posts they are, I'll go back and look at them again.

You missed the Amazon.com stuff? You've referenced them and posted your own set.

Quote from: James J SkachNo, but saying something like "today's TV consumer's tastes are for large, flat screen plasma screens with HD tuners" and then reviewing a 32" cable-ready color TV as a piece of crap because it's not in line with "today's TV consumer." Which is, I believe, how this entire discussion began, no?

Except the marketplace hasn't really moved significantly away from 32" cable-ready TVs. It clearly has moved away from black and white TVs. So, no, the entire discussion is more about color versus black and white.

Quote from: James J SkachInstead, I'm asking for some sort of proof that "today's RPG consumer" does or does not include a significant representation of people who choose, currently, to play AD&D (and similar games) or at the very least don't see it as a hand drill, washboard, or B&W TV.

Basically, we're standing in a showroom full of color TVs and you're saying, "Now demonstrate that more people prefer color TVs than black and white ones." The proof that you're asking for is that the showroom only has color TVs. It's what producers are producing, retailers are stocking, and consumers are purchasing.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYou missed the Amazon.com stuff? You've referenced them and posted your own set.

Oh..no..I saw that.  It's just not proof of anything. Again, you put up D&D 3.x as the benchmark. I looked at other currently produced games.  It appears as if AD&D (and simlar games) fall somewhere in between.  Which leaves us...where in terms of proof again?

Quote from: SeanchaiExcept the marketplace hasn't really moved significantly away from 32" cable-ready TVs. It clearly has moved away from black and white TVs. So, no, the entire discussion is more about color versus black and white.

Except The market hasn't moved away from AD&D, that's still simply your opinion.  I mean, it's a valid opinion, and I'm willing to agree to it as soon as we can get some solid understanding of "today's RPG consumer" other than opinions.

Quote from: SeanchaiBasically, we're standing in a showroom full of color TVs and you're saying, "Now demonstrate that more people prefer color TVs than black and white ones." The proof that you're asking for is that the showroom only has color TVs. It's what producers are producing, retailers are stocking, and consumers are purchasing.

Only if one agrees with your stipulation that AD&D is a B&W TV.  I'm actually standing in a room full of color TV's and saying, "Tell me again why I should believe that the tastes of today's TV consumer don't include 32-inch-cable-ready Color TV's? Cause I see one there, and there, and there's a few over there, and..."

Alas, it seems will will continue to talk passed each other on this one.

Quote from: James J SkachAlas, it seems will will continue to talk passed each other on this one.

No. You simple won't accept offerings and sales as the proof they are. And not based, I'm afraid, on some objective reasoning, but rather the idea that there's some kind of elitism tied up in measuring a group's preferences as a whole by looking at what the group does as a whole. That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNo. You simple won't accept offerings and sales as the proof they are. And not based, I'm afraid, on some objective reasoning, but rather the idea that there's some kind of elitism tied up in measuring a group's preferences as a whole by looking at what the group does as a whole. That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb.

OK, well, we've made it to the calling names segment of our program...

I thought I'd been very polite in my attempt to inform you that you are full of shit.  Apparently I was wrong. Since we're throwing pretense out:

Who the fuck are you stupid cunt?  You come in here and throw around a couple of Amazon rankings (which people doubt quite a bit anyway) as some sort of oracle of fucking truth?  What are you, some sort of in-bred mouthbreather? Jesus Fucking Christ.  There are a ton of people who stiil play AD&D. They are RPG consumers.  So how the fuck do they not figure in to a term like "today's RPG consumer?" This doesn't even get into the fact that your almighty Amazong rankings weren't quite the whole story. But you're such a fucking shithead you couldn't actually look up any AD&D books, could you?

Your "proof" also consists of stating that D&D 3.x and AD&D are different. What the fuck kind of stupidity is that? That's your great and powerful argument for a change in tastes? It's still D&D, fuckface. Sure some rules have changed, but the underlying concepts remain.  What kind of dumb prick says because now people choose royal blue in larger numbers than navy blue that it's proof navy blue is no longer in line with "today's color consumer?"

And that's it?  That's the sum total of your vaunted logical proof?  What a load of shit.

Whew! I don't know how Pundit does it. But I figured I'd try to pick up a little of the slack while he's gone.

The polite me would say:

• Your Amazon rankings were incomplete at best.  For some reason, you are unable to grasp that Amazon rankings tell us little in the first place, and that yours are particularly weak given those provided in counterpoint.
• You are, for some reason, unable to grasp the concept that not everyone agree with your characterization of AD&D.  For many people who still play it, support it, chat about it in forums, buy the books on Amazon, it is not a hand drill, washboard, or black and white TV.
• Since those people are doing those things at this point in time, they must be included in any figuring of a formulation of "today's RPG consumer."
• Added to that group are those who choose later, even current, versions of D&D.  Yes, several aspects are different - in particular specific mechanics.  But most of the overarching concepts are still present.  If anything AD&D is more like 3.x than different.
• Given the above, your "proof" amounts to nothing but your opion.
• Ergo, you are a poopyhead.

Quote from: James J SkachOK, well, we've made it to the calling names segment of our program...

Not exactly—I addressed your argument, not you as a person. "That's certainly your right, of course, but it's dumb." It's dumb, not you're dumb.

Seanchai

I don't play AD&D myself - so I don't really have a dog in this fight.  Still think the quotes at the beginning of this thread were fine by themselves as general gaming advice.

HOWEVER,
 I DO see a LOT of gamers talking about RPGs on an almost daily basis. Thats part of my job.

 AD&D - there is STILL a lot of affection for that game amongst gamers. Even those now playing the D20 version of it.  At the store there are many customers thatr just buy the map tiles and miniatures - and they are using those with their barely surviving AD&D books.
 This kind of thing may not show up in Amazon figures on industry magazine sales figures charts - but it does happen.


- E.W.C.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizardThe more things change, the more they stay the same in the case of D&D though. THAC is mathematically the same as THACO,...

Really? I could have sworn that AD&D AC had a hard cap? :o You sure don't come up with the numbers or apply to rolls in any remotely similar way other than physical armor and dex are (usually) good.  They kept some key names (Armor Class) and they kept that Strength helps you hit (only now Feats let you bypass that) and the use of the d20 (with high roll=good). Enough to keep the brand while hauling a lot of the junk out.

QuoteThe saving throw system is a little funky looking now, but you still use it the same basic way.

Sure, if by "same basic way" you mean "completely different except that you still roll a d20 and it is still called a 'Saving Throw' and succeeding at the roll is still a Good Thing".

QuoteI think the Players Handbook and the Monster Manual are organised just fine.

Ooookay....

Sure it was a successor. Obviously imperative that it appear as one. But it was at it's heart a rewrite.

Quote from: blakkieReally? I could have sworn that AD&D AC had a hard cap? :o You sure don't come up with the numbers or apply to rolls in any remotely similar way other than physical armor and dex are (usually) good.  They kept some key names (Armor Class) and they kept that Strength helps you hit (only now Feats let you bypass that) and the use of the d20 (with high roll=good). Enough to keep the brand while hauling a lot of the junk out.

I think you are just picking at nits here. If you are rolling a d20 to beat the opponents armor class and then rolling some dice or another for damage then its the same old shit we used to do in the 80s. It's not exactly the same system down to the last detail, but it is close enough to keep the brand as you say.

Quote from: blakkieSure, if by "same basic way" you mean "completely different except that you still roll a d20 and it is still called a 'Saving Throw' and succeeding at the roll is still a Good Thing".

By "same basic way" I mean if you get bit by a spider or have a fireball thrown at you, the DM is gonna make you roll a d20 to see if you get poisoned or take half damage or whatever. Do they want you to roll low now to make saves or is it still roll over? Either way it is implemented for the same reasons, so I dont think it's "completely different".

Quote from: blakkieOoookay....

You don't think the original Monster Manual (for instance) is organised? It's just an alphabetical listing of critters. It works pretty well for most people, I would think.

I'm not saying D&D 3e is the same exact game as the original, I'm one of those guys who prefers 1st ed, remember. What I'm saying is they didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The way you arrive at to-hit numbers and such may even be vastly different, but you use them in game the same way. For all the things they tweaked, there are still classes and levels, the stats are the same, there are still opportunities for people to get wanky and min/max, beholders, vorpel swords, etc. If it didn't say Dungeons and Dragons on the cover, everyone would say it was a rip-off of Dungeons and Dragons. I'm not sure if you are arguing that the rules changes make for a different game play experience or not, but I would say that they don't really amount to much in the long run.

As to Gygax's writing style, I don't guess we are going to see eye to eye on that so I won't belabor the point. :)