Hadit said:
Hello Gary!
After reading some of your responses to earlier posts, another question came to mind...
How has the playing and enjoyment of RPGs changed for you since AD&D? I mean, there seems to be an evolution of style in the games you've authored since AD&D (Mythus, LA). The addition of skills, mostly.
For example: You mentioned in an earlier post that you expected AD&D players to bring along a good amount of hirelings and henchmen into the dungeons with them. Is this still a recipe that rings true in LA?
Is LA the natural evolution of AD&D for you, or a whole new agenda all-together?
Thank-you for your time, dear sir!
Duglas
Duglas,
That's an excellent question
The newer game systems I designed were meant to offer a somewhat different perspective on the play of the FRPG. I'll move directly to the LA game as it is in print.
LA is a different game that any other I have created. What I was attempting to create with it is the same "spirit and soul" as were found in OA/D&D while having a completely different approach. It is so different that those coming to it with the D&D mindset have trouble getting into it. That is the main reason I used new terminology, hoping thus to facilitate the grasp of the new system by using different names and changint thinking patterns.
In the LA system the beginning character (Avatar) is sufficiently able to operate alone or with a like party and not need to hire anyone. Of course hiring can be done if the Avatar has sufficient funds.
Let me go back a bit to the approach of original D&D players. Most suce initial players came from military miniatures gaming where commanding a force of warriors was the norm. It was a natural thing for a PC group to hire men-at-arms, form a mercenary company and adventure thus. As the background experience of the players became less warame oriented, the focus of play shifter from the compamy to the core party of PCs. this was in a sense an evolution, the realization of the uniqueness of the RPG form apart from the military miniaturtes one. Designing adventure material for a party of PC is certainly easier than doing the same for a party plus mercenary forces. Thus modules assumed the former, and the concept of the adventuring company was further removed from the game.
It seems most players prefer to manage only their own PC/Avatar and work with the player group thus. A couple of years back when I was play-testing a sourcebook for the LA game the group turned down the services of a company of warriors that their prowess had impressed--the team of Avatars had gained considerable Repute. They could have become local lords, ruled lands and estates, etc. Instead they preferred to be an adventuring party of "rootless" sort--over the objections of one younger member, my son Alex. They also avoided political matters.
So in the end the question is more of player preference than of evolution of ideas. Most persons seem to prefer individual action to command of a group of NPCs. When playing the former sort of campaign thinking and action are on the personal and small tactical scale. In the larger-group format, thinking must expand beyond the personal problem and quest into areas that include such things as business, commerce, espionage, finances, intregue, politics, protocol, strategy, etc.
The LA game can handle either approach, but it was created to facilitate the core Avatar group adventure
Yes, I still prefer the larger approach, but I don't get to play a character often enough to tire of the limited, personal adventure one.
Sorry to run on so!
Gary
