TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 3, 2005

With all due respect, Col., I suspect that has more to do with the campaigns than the system. I remember back before I was cured of Munchkinism (1979-81), PCs in our campaigns would gain 2-3 levels a session. Soon, the very gods trembled at our footsteps...

In fact, I just ran a 3Ed campaign where the first magic weapon wasn't awarded until 3rd level...and it was the only magic item the party had until 5th level. And this wasn't a low magic campaign. (Lets just say it had things in common with the Slave Lords modules.)

bolen · Jul 3, 2005

Col_Pladoh said:
That's essentially correct, the game being Chainmail using th "Man-to-Man" rules. What with command figures and the rules, individual figure play was not startling. When heroes, superheroes, and wizards were considered in the "Fantasy supplement," the concept of a player with but a single figure on the table born. I would use my point buys to take a superhero in magic armor, with a magic sword, backed up by a wizard with fireball spells. The superhero would assail the mass of enemy troops, and when they gathered round to attack him the wizard would drop a fireball on the lot. The superhero was very likely to come out unscathed, much to the fury of my opponents.

Well, with what's above, and what I ahve passed along regarding the initial and final drafts of the game that became D&D, the story is pretty well told.

Cheers,
Gary

Thanks for the quick reply but I still am wondering

It still seems a large leap from a game where you point buy a gladiator and I point puy a gladiator and we roll dice to see who wins. To a game where you had a DM creating a story and you had goals to accomplish as a group and there was no Wining or loosing (although I guess dying is loosing :lol:

and incidentally you did a good job of killing my party when I just took them through Necropolis)

At what point did you the DM and player quit being opponets and fit into the roles we see them today?

A'koss · Jul 3, 2005

Col_Pladoh said:
How about this:

A 15th level PC in AD&D requires years of gaming, and when arriving at thay level the character is generally retired.

Well, for the typical gamer, it probably still takes years to get a character that high... But then, for guys like us who play a lot more often, there are rules in place to slow advancement to a more comfortable level. Also, mortality rates are pretty high in 3e, especially when you consider all the crits and the save or die stuff that you don't have the luxury of making your save on a 2.

In new D&D arriving at that level takes a mere few months, and that PC is nothing compared to the half-dragon/half-vampire multi-prestige class one that the kid next door stomps around the campaign world with

Heh... true, but that is really a campaign issue though. And let's be honest here, didn't we all experiment playing "dragonmen", vampires, lycanthropes, githyanki and other exotic monster characters in AD&D?

Cheers!

A'koss.

Col_Pladoh · Jul 3, 2005

Dannyalcatraz said:
With all due respect, Col., I suspect that has more to do with the campaigns than the system. I remember back before I was cured of Munchkinism (1979-81), PCs in our campaigns would gain 2-3 levels a session. Soon, the very gods trembled at our footsteps...

In fact, I just ran a 3Ed campaign where the first magic weapon wasn't awarded until 3rd level...and it was the only magic item the party had until 5th level. And this wasn't a low magic campaign. (Lets just say it had things in common with the Slave Lords modules.)

Of course poor DMing can account for many anomalies. that said, it is the game rules that tell. If one follows them, then progress in AD&D is slow, in new D&D rapid. the team spirit of AD&D is gone, as the emphasis is on individual progress in the new game. Experience is aimed at seek and destroy power gaming. Of course, AD&D wasn't much better in that regard, but a revision shuld have corrected that flaw

Anyway, a debate of this sort is profitless, and hereafter i shall refrain from further comments in regards such matters.

Cheers,
Gary

JRRNeiklot · Jul 3, 2005

A'koss said:
Indeed. However, that's neither here nor there as D&D has never, ever, been geared to model these archetypes in the way you're suggesting. D&D character have always been able to vastly exceed the capabilities of the figures you mention. Could any of them fall from orbit, get up, dust themselves off and continue soldiering on? You could never model the armorless characters in D&D without either being a monk or with the aid of magic. And speaking of armor, in the early editions, you could quite literally have an AC so low that you were completely invulnerable to the attacks of LL beings. A high level AD&D fighter with a -8 AC could waltz all over a LL army with complete impunity. It wouldn't matter if they could fire 200,000 arrows/rd on his location. D&D characters do not tire, nor do they suffer any detrimental effects of injury until they are KO'd or dead.

Again, 3e does give you a lot more powers/options, no question, but I don't see that earlier edition characters were any more "human". Not in any way that really mattered.

Cheers!

A'koss.

What kind of game where you playing?

At1d6 per 10 feet fallen, what 9d10 hit point fighter could survive a fall from orbit? And wasn't falling damage originally exponential? Ie, 1d6 for 10 feet, 2d6 for then next ten for a total of 3d6 for 20 feet?

200,000 arrows = 1,000 hits on average, assuming you'd need a 20 to hit. What AD&D character can take 1,000 d6 damage?

And an armorless character in a medieval period is quite stupid, as he will be destroyed by the guy in armor, so I think it models it quiite well. Try picking up a stick and hitting your buddy dressed in full football pads and helmet, while he does the same to you while you wear jeans and a t-shirt. Sure, you might get lucky and bop him in the knee, but he can hurt you by hitting you ANYWHERE. And plate mail even had substabtial coverage of joints, weaker coverage, maybe, but better than nothing. You can always play an unarmored fighter, though, as long as he's an archer.

I'm no expert on medieval warfare by any means, but c'mon, what kid hasn't had backyard fights with wiffle ball bats and football helmets? Garbage can lids make excellent shields, btw.

JRRNeiklot · Jul 3, 2005

A'koss said:
Heh... true, but that is really a campaign issue though. And let's be honest here, didn't we all experiment playing "dragonmen", vampires, lycanthropes, githyanki and other exotic monster characters in AD&D?

Cheers!

A'koss.

Nope!

Col_Pladoh · Jul 3, 2005

bolen said:
Thanks for the quick reply but I still am wondering

It still seems a large leap from a game where you point buy a gladiator and I point puy a gladiator and we roll dice to see who wins. To a game where you had a DM creating a story and you had goals to accomplish as a group and there was no Wining or loosing (although I guess dying is loosing and incidentally you did a good job of killing my party when I just took them through Necropolis)

At what point did you the DM and player quit being opponets and fit into the roles we see them today?

Sorry!

I had assumed you were familiar with military miniatures. In most such games players are represented by a command figure, supplied with a past events history, the current situation, an order of battle, and objectives leading to mission success, the goal of play. The manner of execution is left to the players, of course.

In short there is a story and a "quest" concerned with most miniatures games. In miniatures campaigns, there are many scenarios, each possibly altered by the results of past actions. Furthermore, such campaigns usually involve economics, political intregue, building, and considerable planning.

In many of the games I played the Judge/Referee would also command some or all of the opposing forces, although sometimes he would be less directly involved and mainly ajudicate disputes, bring in occasional random events.

All of those are part of the PRG form. so the imagined leap is more like a hop when one considers children;s games of Let's Pretend and Cops & Robbersas much of the basis for the game form's foundation :uhoh:

Cheers,
Gary

bolen · Jul 3, 2005

thanks for answering

Col_Pladoh · Jul 3, 2005

A'koss said:
...

... And let's be honest here, didn't we all experiment playing "dragonmen", vampires, lycanthropes, githyanki and other exotic monster characters in AD&D?

Cheers!

A'koss.

Never happened in any campaign I ever ran, and none of the DMs I knew allowed such stuff either.

Of course there were those young power gamers who took my April Fools' joke character class, the Ultimist seriously and asked for more details :lol:

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Jul 3, 2005

bolen said:
thanks for answering

Most cordially welcome, sir!

And now as the sun is below the yardarm it is time for a refreshing libation and a bit of casual reading on my front porch

Ciao,
Gary

TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

bolen

First Post

A'koss

Explorer

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

JRRNeiklot

First Post

JRRNeiklot

First Post

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

bolen

First Post

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Similar Threads

Related Articles