TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh said:

Yes, those are some valid observations. OAD&D encouraged and in some instances facilitated innovation and had flexible rules that did not require an explanation for everything.

Click to expand...

This is true, but the main flexibility of the rules was their nonexistence. 3e/d20 tries to give at least general guidelines that, in the hands of an experienced group of gamers, are as easy to access and use as house rules made on the fly, and which result in a more consistent game. I think the mistake could be made in believing that 3e/d20 fans slavishly devote themselves to making sure every rule is followed to the letter; that may occur on the internet, but in practice I don't see it happening.

I can tell you this - the OAD&D or 1e spirit is still alive and well in the games I play, no matter what system is used. It's all a matter of who is actually playing the game, not the system itself. Instead of trying to remember how we handled each and every occurrence of something not covered in the rules, we now have at least a self-consistent source to which we can refer, rather than relying upon sometimes arbitrary, sometimes conflicting, and often-changing house rulings.

I'm not trying to somehow "prove" one game or edition is better than another; that would be impossible, as games, like fiction, gain much of their resonance from being digested by the individual. I'm not one of the 3e bunch strutting and proselytizing. I'm just wanting to set forth what it is that I, a gamer from long back, like about the new game, and how it fits my needs. That doesn't mean the old game is crap or inferior. Quite the contrary; HackMaster, for example, has helped me remember what it was I loved about 1e back in the day.

Oh yeah, Gary - Necropolis kicks ass! I'm extremely pleased with this book! I'd love to see more like it from you.

Well, Colonel...

What can I say? Aside from the fact that the rules ommissions in OAD&D were generally done on purpose, so as to not shackle DMs and those writing for the system, and to definately have a game where everything was not quantified or explained, What you norte is valid IMO. A game is indeed just that. Its merits exist in the eyes of the players, little else.

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh said:

Well, Colonel...

What can I say? Aside from the fact that the rules ommissions in OAD&D were generally done on purpose, so as to not shackle DMs and those writing for the system, and to definately have a game where everything was not quantified or explained, What you norte is valid IMO. A game is indeed just that. Its merits exist in the eyes of the players, little else.

Cheers,
Gary

Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you mean, and I have assumed that many of the omissions (for lack of a better word) of the elder editions was due to a desire to keep the game uncluttered in many cases. I remember playing very early on, where we improvised/house ruled a lot of stuff based on what we felt the characters (and monsters) would know how to do, and the chance they had to do it. I will acknowledge that such "white space" is desirable for those who wish to use player prerogative more often. I will offer this thought, though, as I did above - I think that many of the players of the new edition can - and do - run their games as spontaneously as many of us did/do with the older editions. The new edition just gives more of a way to "eyeball" how to run the game.

I also think that once players and designers get more comfortable with the new system - or work with those who have - then the game will seem much less like shackles.

...by the way, will you be attending GenCon once it moves to Indy?

Wow - still here?

Hi Gary!

Amazing! This thread is still going... I thought we had farewelled you from this discussion ages ago

Still, since you're still hereabouts, I actually had a question that occurred to me as I read the latest posts. It may have been asked somewhere else, but I don't roam the internet very much and haven't seen it...

How have the dice (number of sides, etc) evolved in D&D? Other games I've seen tend to use multiple d6s with maybe a different value on one side, but I love the number and variety of dice in D&D, as well as rolling them (even if some do get a bit lonely - I feel especially fond of the d12 in this respect ). Were there always the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 in D&D?

Well, Fellow Colonel...

Some prefer to fill in, others to excise.

Currently, though, the 3E buffs tend to want *more* rules and adherence to the letter of the rules, so I am not convinced that the free-wheeling and innovative phase is likely to develop as you project

Cheers,
Gary

Re: Wow - still here?

Caedrel said:

Hi Gary!

Amazing! This thread is still going... I thought we had farewelled you from this discussion ages ago

Click to expand...

Heh, and indeed, I go along for a few days and then lo and behold! Another post to this thread, another gamer who would appreciate my response, so how can I not do so?

Still, since you're still hereabouts, I actually had a question that occurred to me as I read the latest posts. It may have been asked somewhere else, but I don't roam the internet very much and haven't seen it...

How have the dice (number of sides, etc) evolved in D&D? Other games I've seen tend to use multiple d6s with maybe a different value on one side, but I love the number and variety of dice in D&D, as well as rolling them (even if some do get a bit lonely - I feel especially fond of the d12 in this respect ). Were there always the d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and d20 in D&D?

Click to expand...

Indeed, from the inception of the game with OD&D, the Platonic solids were included. There were no d20s per se, then. They were numbered 0-9 twice, so you had to color in half the faces for 10 plus the number, or else roll another die with that one to get a 1-20 range.

Now I include a d30 in the LA game, although it isnt' used much. I also have a d7 that's useful but not caled for in the rules. A d7 and d4 in conjunction give you the day of the lunar month, of course Also handy for random determination of something when there are seven characters involved.

Cheerio,
Gary

Col_Pladoh said:

Well, Fellow Colonel...

Some prefer to fill in, others to excise.

Currently, though, the 3E buffs tend to want *more* rules and adherence to the letter of the rules, so I am not convinced that the free-wheeling and innovative phase is likely to develop as you project

Cheers,
Gary

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. I can only relate what I've witnessed first hand, and, of course, anecdotal evidence is usually only of use in determining what is going on in a small area. I'm guessing that veteran gamers like myself and older will play D&D much as we always have, regardless of the edition. Gamers who got into the game more recently may play quite differently. I honestly believe, though, that veteran gamers and designers could influence how any generation of gamers plays simply by way of example.

And hey - will you be attending GenCon when it goes to Indy?

Morning Colonel

We are in agreement about veteran gamers, DMs and players alike. They will most certainly use what they consider the good parts of the system they play, disgard, alter, replace what doesn't suit them.

There is a very large audience that is not hardcore, don't read RPG zines, don't roam the boards, don't go to cons. just play with their group and have fun thus. Reaching this audience is difficult in the extreme. If WotC were publishing and promoting 3E support material of the sort that somehow "trained" thees participants, then it might be that some considerable number of them would become like veteran participants. That this is not happening means that the majority is left on their own with the core material, likely the epic book.

Cheerio,
Gary

Col_Pladoh said:

Do worry about following the rules to exact letter. Have a fun campaign. I just waiting on my players to convert their old characters to 3rd so I can show them how mean a green dragon and vampire team up can be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is certainly blasphemy to many 3E players

Gary

Click to expand...

Many, but not all. Some of us actually know what we're doing.
I realize 3e has a wee bit to many rules. I met a 3e "rulez" lawyer the other day, he made me cringe. The way thins guy stroked the rules was insane. He got things done, but it just seemed "unclean" to do things to get an advantage in the rules and make playing secondary. It's just not right.

My belief is that the rules for an RPG should facilitate the enjoyment of the game for all concerned. If they get in the way then they are no good.

Whatever system brings fun for the group is fine. Hopefully the rules will be such as to enable that enjoyment to be for as long a period of play as the group wishes to experience.

Players who attempt to use the rules as a stick to beat players, or the GM, the latter thus enhancing their character in the game, are anethma to me. Hells bells! If some player in a game I am running demonstrates to me that some rule I have written makes no sense in the situation at hand. or I happen to discern that without such "encouragement," I toss the book out the proverbial window for the case at hand, and likely take a hard look at the material for continued application. Ecverybody makes errors...

Cheerio,
Gary