I came up with the goal from 'The Tao of D&D', who in a recent article explained the purpose of revising dragons with the quote I used.
Odd. I don't remember that.
Respectfully, I disagree. The game is very recognizably AD&D and still draws heavily on AD&D material as source books and inspiration, for most of its terminology, it's classes and for the greater part of its rules.
It does. And he's on record as stating that he won't reproduce the core rules from the books, for various reasons (not the least of which include copyright infringement). You are correct on two counts.
The game described therein is actually a relatively small departure from AD&D, and really no different from AD&D than 1e game heavily drawing from a couple of dozen Dragon articles for optional and extended rules.
This is clearly an inaccurate statement. He's written over 2,000 posts on his blog about the game, demonstrating the ability to deconstruct and analyze on a level I've encountered with but a handful of DMs. He's written over 1,000 posts for his rules Wiki ~ including a great many that drastically improve the game, including (but not limited to):
- A combat system reminiscent of 3rd Edition (but much improved with a few key rules, specifically Stun Lock and Wounds).
- A skill system that provides a vast array of options for the players, with appropriately in-depth rules, supported by research and solid design theory.
- A world economy system that accounts for scarcity and demand, and that presents rational options to the players.
- A technology/social development system ~ still in the works ~ that proves very promising where it comes to further defining the world.
Indeed, so small is the departure from AD&D that I'm not even sure the described game could be properly described as a "fantasy heartbreaker". It's AD&D with a few personalized touches, many of which feel incomplete and not ready to be shared - as with many homebrewers, the vast majority of the rules appear to be stored in the DM's head.
You come across as knowing an awful lot about his work. I find this confusing because, if you've read it before, you'd know that his game is far removed from AD&D, if only for the reasons I've provided; but if you haven't read it before, I'm struggling to understand how you could make these claims with only a day's notice.
Took me a year to get through his blog (in-between everything else in life), and that was four years ago...
It's certainly not as big of a departure as say Hackmaster, although I see some potential influences on the rules that might have their origin in that game.
If there is, it's entirely coincidence. He's written before about his influences and he's been adamant that other games have had little impact.
For example, after browsing a couple of dozen pages on the site I have no idea from the collection of rules that I perused exactly what goals of play the rulesmith actually has. They don't appear to be realism, verisimilitude to setting, or balance. Indeed, a good portion of the rules are honestly regressions from typical 1e AD&D rules in those regards. Yet at the same time I see the use of division and other complex to apply concepts in the rules, which suggests the goal isn't playability either.
I agree, these house rules aren't presented with a clearly defined paradigm. The blog has more details.
I recommend starting with this post:
Seizing the Day. It captures a core paradigm which I believe should apply to all RPGs.
From there, I would direct potential readers to the following posts (in no particular order):
How to Dungeon Master (The 10,000 Word Post)
How to Play a Character (The 10,000 Word Post)
How to Start a Trading Town I
The Trade Process
How to Tackle a Dungeon I - First Steps
8 Tips That Will Let Any Idiot Improve Their Game
24 Petards to be Roasted Upon (or, How to be a Player)
The Art and Fall of Preparation
Weather System Mark VI - Temperature
Let's Try It Again From the Beginning
