D&D General And the Druid Explodes: Understanding the AD&D Design Space's Legacy

[Charlaquin]

I think that's a very accurate assessment. Early D&D had a lot of prohibitory rules, which are largely absent from modern D&D.

I'd almost go so far as to say that this a major, and oft-unremarked, major difference between early D&D and modern D&D. I'm not so sure that I'd go as far as to call the prohibitions arbitrary; while they might seem weird today, there were strong game reasons for letting the fighter use all weapons and all armor, and keeping the same from magic users. But the idea that certain restrictions were just there, and that's the way it is ... that's definitely something that's faded.

Oh, no, I don’t think it’s necessarily arbitrary either, just that it can feel that way when you’re accustomed to restrictions being in the form of missing out on a bonus or suffering a penalty rather than outright disallowance.

 

[Cruentus]

Or that one can’t abide any restrictions at all. We’ve seen that play out where the sky continues to be the limit, and ‘balance’ is achieved by giving classes more and more (usually spell like abilities), as a design decision rather than to rein things in.

Our group cut our teeth on 1e, and wrestled with understanding and applying the rules, and looked forward to Dragon mag appearing (or at least I did as the ‘rules lawyer’) for clarification. Without that ‘officialdom‘, we carried on and decided how things worked for our table, and added and removed things all the time (class level limits, certain overly complicated combat elements), but we actually tried them all as well.

After 40 years, we’ve gone back to B/X and elements of 1e, after playing 5e, precisely because it’s limiting, and things are more niched, but we also play using the approach of everything is possible by anyone, regardless of what is on the fairly sparse character sheet (a pro, not a con).

 

[Clint_L]

Excellent read, as usual! I'm curious as to how much of Arneson's "negative space" with regards to rules came from active design intent, and how much came from him being, by all accounts, an epic procrastinator.

 

[aco175]

One of the things I seem to have taken away is that we do not need some of the classes anymore. Most of the layers of restriction and exclusion have been stripped or modified enough to make a class like ranger not needed. No wonder there were so many threads about them not having a home or just sucking altogether. They may have fit into a niche, but remove the restriction from other filling that niche and now what.

Although we seem to want to make more classes and not less. That urge to find a design hole one thinks is needed or wanted seems big enough to keep having more classes. Sorcerer and warlock may have been new and cool in the past editions, but are they just meh in 5e? People at my table do not take them, but I see warlock getting a lot of love on this site.

I need more classes since multi-class rules suck is another thing I hear. I need a class that does fighter/wizard without spending the time or being half a caster when we hit 11th level. Like Magic cards and power creep when nobody wants to give up lightning bolt for one fire mana when that 2-damage card came out to replace it.

 

[clearstream]

I like this concept of “Arnesonian negative space” in contrast to “Gygaxian rules codification.” I suspect that, for most people who question druid metal armor restrictions, it’s not a question of realism, but an objection to a perceived arbitrary reduction in the Arnesonian space. The objection I typically see is not “it’s unrealistic for a druid not to be able to wear metal armor,” it’s “I want to know what happens if my druid character does wear metal armor.” If the answer is that they lose all Druid levels and have to start over as a 1st level character, well, ok. That may be a disappointing answer to a player who wants to play a druid and wear metal armor, but at least it’s an answer; the Arnesonian space is restricted, but at least it’s restricted because a rule says what happens if you do the thing instead of just “you can’t because you can’t.”

I think this may be more frustrating to an audience more familiar with WotC’s D&D. As you noted, in TSR’s D&D there were many such arbitrary restrictions - the only answer to why a magic user can’t use a longsword is also “you can’t because you can’t.” Whereas, in WotC’s D&D, a wizard absolutely can use a longsword. They just wouldn’t want to in most circumstances because they don’t gain whatever benefits the edition being played grants for having proficiency with a weapon. In this context, a rule that just says “Druids won’t wear metal armor” seems jarring, because such restrictions are not as commonplace. A player accustomed to such D&D expects a consequence for doing the thing their class isn’t supposed to do, rather than outright denial of the option to even attempt it.

From a designability perspective, ruling through consequences can be difficult to predict the results of because your rule changes from

If you are a druid, you cannot wear metal armor

To essentially

If you forfeit all druid levels above 1st, you can wear metal armor

The potential result is

All 1st level druids sport platemail

What you say makes sense of course, I'm just highlighting the risks. Generally, if one truly does not want X to be a doable thing in one's design, don't put a price on X.

 

[Charlaquin]

From a designability perspective, ruling through consequences can be difficult to predict the results of because your rule changes from

If you are a druid, you cannot wear metal armor

To essentially

If you forfeit all druid levels above 1st, you can wear metal armor

The potential result is

All 1st level druids sport platemail

Err… If it were to work like Paladins, no, you would not get to keep any levels of druid, including 1st level. Not that I think that would be a good design choice in the first place, of course.

What you say makes sense of course, I'm just highlighting the risks. Generally, if one truly does not want X to be a doable thing in one's design, don't put a price on X.

My point was that WotC seems to be perfectly ok with X having a price, for pretty much any value of X that isn’t “Druids wearing metal armor.” So it’s understandable that players accustomed to WotC’s D&D to find it surprising and frustrating that, for this one very specific value of X, they’re just outright prohibited instead of having a price they can pay to do it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Excellent read, as usual! I'm curious as to how much of Arneson's "negative space" with regards to rules came from active design intent, and how much came from him being, by all accounts, an epic procrastinator.

Why not both?

Seriously, though, I do think that the recent scholarship and Arneson complicates our view of him, but it shouldn't get rid of his essential genius.

I think the following things can both be true:
1. I would never, ever, ever want to depend on Dave Arneson as a business partner or collaborator, and from all accounts, I'd rather have a root canal than try and work with him to get actual written and organized product. Wait, scratch that. I'd rather try to get PAGES from George R. R. R. R. R. R. (the R. is for R U SERIOUS?) Martin for his next GOT book than work with Arneson.

2. I would kill to play in a game run by Arneson.

The dichotomy is because (at least during the relevant time period during the 70s*) Arneson was an incredibly skilled and talented and creative gamer, the person singularly responsible for transforming the Braunstein games into proto-D&D, but his great talents (including his creative and improvisational talents) were difficult to translate onto the page and systematize.

I'm sure we've all met some variation of this individual before- the person who can excel at something, but has difficulty explaining or replicating what they did consistently. That prefers to move on to something new than to document what is already old hat to them.


*Again, I know that he later taught course at a university, so maybe this changed? I can only speak to the period that I read that was documented.

 

[TwoSix]

My point was that WotC seems to be perfectly ok with X having a price, for pretty much any value of X that isn’t “Druids wearing metal armor.” So it’s understandable that players accustomed to WotC’s D&D to find it surprising and frustrating that, for this one very specific value of X, they’re just outright prohibited instead of having a price they can pay to do it.

Exactly. Even as someone who grew up on 2E, I can acutely remember reading the 3E PHB and seeing the new armor rules and weapon proficiency rules and thinking "Oh, that just makes a ton more sense".

I'm about as far as a purist for simulation as you can get, but gamist restrictions on something as basic as swinging a sword or putting on armor (especially ones that center class as existing within the fiction, yuk) are one of the few things that set off my "inconsistency" alarm.

 

[Seramus]

I honestly think they just wanted Druids to have lower AC than Clerics. The IC "reasons" probably came after the decision to have Druid AC be lower.

 

[Voadam]

I honestly think they just wanted Druids to have lower AC than Clerics. The IC "reasons" probably came after the decision to have Druid AC be lower.

No. They were monsters before they were a pc class (0e D&D Greyhawk) and they were trying to make fantasy magical Celtic cultists with sickles and sacrifices at Stonehenge. Chain mail just did not fit the image.