TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh · Aug 22, 2007

JRR_Talking said:
Not a big board game player myself.

I played this a few weeks back for the first time and couldnt believe wot a wonderful game they had produced. Cant recommend it enough*.

John

*not quite as good as the old roleplaying, but an excellent diversion**

As is this post as a nice change to all the 4e discussion!

Check our Ra, Puerto Rico, and San Juan

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Aug 22, 2007

Moggthegob said:
Dear Gary,

In light of 4e being announced I would like to know if a) you had any thoughts
b.) whether or not you think this will e good for c&c/LA,which i recently purchased and I must say I enoyed the uniqueness of each class again.
Also, since it seems as thoguh the wizards of the crap are dropping greyhawk as the default setting if you could somehow get it back.

Hi there!

Sadly, my crystal ball doesn't work all that well... :uhoh:

WotC/Hasbro ever giving up any trade mark in the D&D line is about as likely as Iran becoming a Christian nation.

Cheers,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Aug 22, 2007

PapersAndPaychecks said:
Those additions to Greyhawk might look like chocolate, but they certainly don't taste like it!

What can I say other than... :lol:

Cheers,
Gary

rossik · Aug 23, 2007

mr gygax, glad you are back!

congratulations on your wedding aniversary, bets wishes to you and your wife

i read a couple of days ago the adventure you DMed for the moderators..it make me laugh so hard at the mule's death that im still talking to plp that dont even know rpg about it.

it looked like a simple adventure, but still very rich in flavor and fun!!!

did u intent to kill the mule, or it was a "momento" thing?

sorry to ask Dm secrets, but i really wanna to know :heh:

RFisher · Aug 23, 2007

Some people depict "rules light" gaming as games in which the GM slowly accumulates his own rules to cover everything that comes up so that you are eventually playing what amounts to a "rules heavy" game but with rules that weren't as well developed as if you had started with a "rules heavy" system.

As a fan of "rules light" gaming & designer of "rules light" games, what do you think of that? Should the GM of a "rules light" game come up with & record a rule to handle everything that comes up that isn't already covered in the rules?

Or is the difference between "rules light" & "rules heavy" something else?

JMac5892 · Aug 23, 2007

Ho there, Colonel!

I haven't posted over here before, but have been checking in regularly for some time. While catching up on what I missed while in the UK, I found some discussion a few weeks ago of one of my favorite topics: variable HD types for AD&D critters.

I've compiled some ideas based on your prior posts on the matter, plus my own thoughts; would very much appreciate your opinion on the categories below...

Thanks!

Joe

D4 or D6: used for small monsters who may attack with a higher HD matrix, but have few hit points (e.g. giant ant).

D8: The general standard. Used for many ‘giant-class’ humanoids, animals, large insect- or arachnid-type monsters, and very large invertebrate creatures.

D10: used for large monsters and animals, some ‘giant-class’ humanoids, the smaller demon and devil types, and very large water creatures.

D12: used for the largest monsters or animals, such as dinosaurs, dragons, etc. Also used for very large ‘giant class’ humanoids (ogres and larger) and the larger demon and devil types.

Notes:

• Idea: rather than D10 to D12 for demons & devils, use +1 to +4 hit points per (8-sided) die, as the various daemon types get?

• Some large animals might have greater physcial mass than ogres or giants, for example, but do not qualify for D12 hit dice because hit points subsume (intelligent) fighting ability in addition to body mass.

• Some monsters (e.g. kobold, goblin) retain the ‘1/2’ or ‘1-1’ classification based on the D8, as this determines their attack matrix.

Col_Pladoh · Aug 23, 2007

rossik said:
mr gygax, glad you are back!

congratulations on your wedding aniversary, bets wishes to you and your wife

i read a couple of days ago the adventure you DMed for the moderators..it make me laugh so hard at the mule's death that im still talking to plp that dont even know rpg about it.

it looked like a simple adventure, but still very rich in flavor and fun!!!

did u intent to kill the mule, or it was a "momento" thing?

sorry to ask Dm secrets, but i really wanna to know

Thanks for the good wishes. I must take Gail out for an anniversary dinner this weekend

As for the mule, a wandering monster was indicated--the mule and the cart are noisy and attract a good deal of likely unwanted attention. As it was left alone, the mule was the prime target for the hungry gelatinous cube.

That sort of information is no secret, merely standard DM's lore, eh?

Cheerio,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Aug 23, 2007

RFisher said:
Some people depict "rules light" gaming as games in which the GM slowly accumulates his own rules to cover everything that comes up so that you are eventually playing what amounts to a "rules heavy" game but with rules that weren't as well developed as if you had started with a "rules heavy" system.

As a fan of "rules light" gaming & designer of "rules light" games, what do you think of that? Should the GM of a "rules light" game come up with & record a rule to handle everything that comes up that isn't already covered in the rules?

Or is the difference between "rules light" & "rules heavy" something else?

Howdy

Short answer: To my mind a rules-light system should be one that sets forth rules and mechanics that are uncomplicated and sufficiently intuitive so that after GMing the system for a dozen or so sessions there is no need to consult the rules save for unusual circumstances. The GM and players alike can manage from past experience. If something unusual comes up that rules do not cover, intuitive ruling based on the overall system should be simple. In such case few if any notes need be made in regards the matter, as the sdame intuitive assessment will recur as needed...ofter with slightly different results as circimstances alter cases.

Cheerio,
Gary

Col_Pladoh · Aug 23, 2007

JMac5892 said:
Ho there, Colonel!

I haven't posted over here before, but have been checking in regularly for some time. While catching up on what I missed while in the UK, I found some discussion a few weeks ago of one of my favorite topics: variable HD types for AD&D critters.

I've compiled some ideas based on your prior posts on the matter, plus my own thoughts; would very much appreciate your opinion on the categories below...

Thanks!

Joe

D4 or D6: used for small monsters who may attack with a higher HD matrix, but have few hit points (e.g. giant ant).

D8: The general standard. Used for many ‘giant-class’ humanoids, animals, large insect- or arachnid-type monsters, and very large invertebrate creatures.

D10: used for large monsters and animals, some ‘giant-class’ humanoids, the smaller demon and devil types, and very large water creatures.

D12: used for the largest monsters or animals, such as dinosaurs, dragons, etc. Also used for very large ‘giant class’ humanoids (ogres and larger) and the larger demon and devil types.

Notes:

• Idea: rather than D10 to D12 for demons & devils, use +1 to +4 hit points per (8-sided) die, as the various daemon types get?

• Some large animals might have greater physcial mass than ogres or giants, for example, but do not qualify for D12 hit dice because hit points subsume (intelligent) fighting ability in addition to body mass.

• Some monsters (e.g. kobold, goblin) retain the ‘1/2’ or ‘1-1’ classification based on the D8, as this determines their attack matrix.

Hi,

that system of classification you propose is logical, although I believe that no hard and fast stable aplied across the board will serve to properly reflect the robustness of all creatures dealt with in the game. Again, in general I agree with your work.

I would not use minus HPs for kobolds, rather d4. That allows them better attack capacity while maintaining them as relatively fragile opponents.

For truly gargantuan and hearty monsters I would suggest the +HPs to D12 base.

Cheers,
Gary

JMac5892 · Aug 24, 2007

Col_Pladoh said:
Hi,

that system of classification you propose is logical, although I believe that no hard and fast stable aplied across the board will serve to properly reflect the robustness of all creatures dealt with in the game. Again, in general I agree with your work.

I would not use minus HPs for kobolds, rather d4. That allows them better attack capacity while maintaining them as relatively fragile opponents.

For truly gargantuan and hearty monsters I would suggest the +HPs to D12 base.

Cheers,
Gary

Thanks -- yep, I'm not thinking of these as hard rules, but rather guidelines to keep in mind as I consider each monster individually.

As for kobolds (and goblins), treating them as 1 HD monsters for attack purposes will give them a whole new dimension...

TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

rossik

Explorer

RFisher

Explorer

JMac5892

First Post

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

Col_Pladoh

Gary Gygax

JMac5892

First Post

Similar Threads

Related Articles

Latest threads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Upcoming Releases