TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Gentlegamer · Jul 12, 2006

francisca said:
Mmmmm.... That's today's Word of the Day on dictionary.com:

mountebank \MOUN-tuh-bank\, noun:
1. A peddler of quack medicine, who stands on a platform to appeal to the audience.
2. A charlatan; a boastful pretender to knowledge or a skill.

Yeah. That has some possibilities.

<gets to work on an OSRIC compatible version>

Along with Barbarian, Cavalier, and Thief-Acrobat, Gary proposed the following classes, some of which I think he intended to develop for the revised AD&D game:

Mountebank (Thief)
Savant (Magic-user)
Mystic (Cleric)
Jester

Additionally, there is a Hunter (Fighter) class compatible with AD&D designed by Gary out there somewhere. I think I have the write up on it on my hard drive.

ColonelHardisson · Jul 12, 2006

Gentlegamer said:
Mountebank (Thief)
Savant (Magic-user)
Mystic (Cleric)
Jester

The Dragon Compendium actually features a Mountebank, a Savant, and a Jester class (Mystic I don't recall being in there, off the top of my head). The Mountebank and Savant classes, as I (hazily) recall them, could be covered in 3rd edition by a judicious allotment of skills and feats for the Rogue (in the former) and by a Diviner/Loremaster. The 3e versions in the Dragon Compendium - an otherwise fine product - are almost unrecognizable as what Gary proposed way back when. This is especially true of the Mountebank, the Dragon Compendium version of which doesn't even come close to the dictionary definition of the word. I was very disappointed in that one, in particular.

I'd love to have seen Gary's version of those classes. Maybe for C&C or OSRIC...?

Treebore · Jul 12, 2006

I don't think Gary is going to be fully converting to C&C. Things sound to me of scratching each others back with Gary's material and relating it to C&C. From what I have picked up from various boards (no Gary, my Trolls package did not arrive for my B-day, or today either) is that with Gary's skill bundle approach there is no need for a "class" design since each player is doing that with the skill bundle or bundles they select.

So unless Gary gets completely into designing specifically for C&C and its SIEGE engine, we won't see anything like that unless Gary does it as a fun exercise.

I suppose Gary could look at the C&C classes and tell us which bundles of skills to adapt to that class. I suspect we could do an equally good job of it, so why have Gary do it?

gideon_thorne · Jul 12, 2006

Welp. Going by the above definition of the mountebank, one could just use a C&C thief character with a charisma prime and role play it a little bit.

And while the CZ skill bundles confer a few similar class abilties for NPC's , plus a broad range of other ability, to a character, one does need, at basic, a C&C class to start off with to put the skill bundle(s) on too.

Unless one wants to do a bit of work and practicly invent base xp charts for hit die and so forth to attach the skill bundles too? ^_^

Elfdart · Jul 12, 2006

Col_Pladoh said:
As General Patton said, that sort of tactic is grabbing the enemy by the nose as you kick his tail.

Cheers,
Gary

It was like the tactics of Edward Longshanks in Braveheart, only on a smaller scale. Our sessions were pretty cutthroat, according to newbies and outsiders. Our DM ended up changing a few rules because of our ruthlessness.

Which leads me to... did you ever have to change a rule to adapt to what your players were doing? For example, a loophole in the rules or a rule they were abusing?

BOZ · Jul 12, 2006

ColonelHardisson said:
The Dragon Compendium actually features a Mountebank, a Savant, and a Jester class (Mystic I don't recall being in there, off the top of my head). The Mountebank and Savant classes, as I (hazily) recall them, could be covered in 3rd edition by a judicious allotment of skills and feats for the Rogue (in the former) and by a Diviner/Loremaster. The 3e versions in the Dragon Compendium - an otherwise fine product - are almost unrecognizable as what Gary proposed way back when. This is especially true of the Mountebank, the Dragon Compendium version of which doesn't even come close to the dictionary definition of the word. I was very disappointed in that one, in particular.

I'd love to have seen Gary's version of those classes. Maybe for C&C or OSRIC...?

i agree; that would be cool!

Col_Pladoh · Jul 12, 2006

grodog said:
Hi again Gary---

Does that include the Black Reservoir, by chance?

I also got a copy of your "Magician's Ring" story from Wargamer's Digest in 1975 recently, which has several other juicy tidbits about the Castle. I'd be happy to scan and provide to you and Rob if it would be useful (and you don't already have the content)?

If he needs any help, I'm sure we can dig up some volunteers to assist with matching up the stairwells, chutes, ladders, et al

Heh...

Surely pumping me for sneak preview material, eh? :lol:

You'll have to ask Rob if he'd like copied of the material that McCoy ran in his zine. I am sure he'll pass on the offer of map assistance...

Cheers,
Gary

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Jul 12, 2006

Treebore said:
I don't think Gary is going to be fully converting to C&C. ...

I suppose Gary could look at the C&C classes and tell us which bundles of skills to adapt to that class. I suspect we could do an equally good job of it, so why have Gary do it?

Right on!

I much prefer the LA game system to any class-based one, even one with skill bundles.

I won't spend a lot of my waning creative energy cooking up material for anything to which I am not most dedicated. I enjoy the C&C game system, and I'll likely do small bits and pieces, but whole new classes are not in the cards.

Mountebank--a skilled liar/slight of hand trickster/minor illusionist/thief
Savant--a learned character also knowing arcane things and having minor magic-use
Mystic--an augur-clairvoyant with minor monk and cleric abilities
Jester--a gymnast-tumbler with some special spells for attention, laughter, anger, etc.

That should start the creative thoughts flowing

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Jul 12, 2006

Elfdart said:
...

Which leads me to... did you ever have to change a rule to adapt to what your players were doing? For example, a loophole in the rules or a rule they were abusing?

Rules, no, not to the best of my recollection.

Spells, yes indeed!

Of course when I was DMing the rules were highly flexible and nor necesarily what was written in the books... :lol:

Cheers,
Gary

ColonelHardisson · Jul 12, 2006

Col_Pladoh said:
Right on!

I much prefer the LA game system to any class-based one, even one with skill bundles.

I won't spend a lot of my waning creative energy cooking up material for anything to which I am not most dedicated. I enjoy the C&C game system, and I'll likely do small bits and pieces, but whole new classes are not in the cards.

Mountebank--a skilled liar/slight of hand trickster/minor illusionist/thief
Savant--a learned character also knowing arcane things and having minor magic-use
Mystic--an augur-clairvoyant with minor monk and cleric abilities
Jester--a gymnast-tumbler with some special spells for attention, laughter, anger, etc.

That should start the creative thoughts flowing

Cheers,
Gary

Yes, that will help quite a bit.

TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Gentlegamer

Adventurer

ColonelHardisson

What? Me Worry?

Treebore

First Post

gideon_thorne

First Post

Elfdart

Banned

BOZ

Creature Cataloguer

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

ColonelHardisson

What? Me Worry?

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases