Disturbing Trend

Quasqueton

First Post
Guys, I didn't include the "author's" name to get him harrassed. I only included it because it was part of what I was quoting. I had/have no idea who he is -- I just assumed he was joe average AD&D player. I don't even know what Eyes of God is. I would edit out his name now, but the OP is not the only place it appears now.

Mods, does this need editing?

Quasqueton
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Zander

Explorer
Arashi Ravenblade said:
Sounds like the typical cry baby player to me. When you cant satisfy everyone, satisfy yourself.
Wow! We're actually bashing this guy for something he wrote nearly 24 years ago. How sadistic are we? LOL :D
 

Crothian

First Post
Arashi Ravenblade said:
Not role-playing is a player problem not a D&D problem.

Actually that's not true when you look at what little actual role playing stuff is in the books. D&D can do it a lot better.
 


Glyfair

Explorer
I've pointed out a lot of the "the more things change the more they stay the same" in my Classic Dragon Review threads.

For example, Gary on variant rules: "I fervently desire to put the matter of variants, particularly “realistic” variants, to rest once and for all, so as to get on to other more important things, but it keeps springing up every time a sound stroke is dealt to it. Additions to and augmentations of certain parts of the D&D rules are fine. Variants which change the rules so as to imbalance the game or change it are most certainly not." (and then lists examples of destructive rules such as allowing wizards to wield swords or fighters to use wands, and critical hit/miss systems).

In one of the reviews that disappeared in the big forum crash, I covered the article where Gary defends TSR's defending of their copyrights. People used to complain that they couldn't just do whatever they wanted with D&D including copying rulebooks and passing them around, and publishering their own D&D products. Not too far from putting D&D PDFs on filesharing networks.
 

Quasqueton

First Post
Glyfair said:
In one of the reviews that disappeared in the big forum crash
Damn. I was wondering where that thread was. I really, really hate that it got lost -- the Spring 06 forum crash took some wonderful stuff away from us.

Glyfair, do you use the Dragon Magazine Archive CDs for this? I really want to get that, but it is hard to find at all, and impossible to find for under $200.

I've learned that I'm missing #99, and it apparently had some good stuff -- especially a EGG article I'd like to read.

Quasqueton
 

Quasqueton

First Post
Aids for old rules

Dragon Magazine, January 1984 (#81) "Out on a Limb" letters section
I have been playing Dungeons & Dragons for over three years, and find the game and the available playing aids for it excellent. My newest group of players and I have been playing for about a year and a half and we use the original rules or Collector's Editions, finding them more restrictive in many ways than the advanced rules. I am puzzled because I can't find any playing aids, modules, etc., which use these rules. I am wondering why this is and if you will come out with any playing aids which use these rules.
Reply by Kim Mohan
The main reason why we publish virtually no playing aids or adventures specifically for the D&D game is that people generally don't contribute manuscripts on that game. And that's because the D&D game doesn't really lend itself to expansions or variations like the ADVANCED D&D game does. As we've said many times before in many different ways, the D&D rules are more like guidelines and suggestions, and the AD&D rules are more like actual rules, of the unbreakable or unstretchable sort. In the case of the D&D rules, it's difficult to suggest how to do something in a different way when there aren't any hard and fast rules on how to do it in the first place. The AD&D rule system is much more detailed and more specific to begin with, so altering it or expanding upon it is easier to do.
<snip a lot>
This is a good time to point out, for those who are still misled by the similarity in names, that the D&D game and the AD&D game are not structurally related to one another. Many of the rules concerning specific topics are vastly differenmt [sic] in each game. It is not possible to translate a D&D campaign into an AD&D campaign, or vice versa, without losing an aweful lot in the translation.
<snip>
Quasqueton
 

Glyfair

Explorer
Quasqueton said:
Glyfair, do you use the Dragon Magazine Archive CDs for this? I really want to get that, but it is hard to find at all, and impossible to find for under $200.

Yes. I got it when it came out at EB for something like $20-$30. Combined with the FR Interactive Atlas I got at the same time, it was a great time to buy D&D software.


I keep planning on restarting it, and the next issue is a great one (among other things, the first Giants in the Earth article). However, when I put out feelers, few seemed interested, plus I'm dealing with the early stages of carpal tunnel, which makes long articles challenging.
 

diaglo

Adventurer
the more things change the more they stay the same

edit: i point this out on a regular basis. ain't nothing new in the game. just the way people wish to perceive it.

there have always been power gamers (Supplement I Greyhawk), rules lawyers, and people trying to build one trick ponies. as well as the mechanics like AoO, improved ways to get tactics, around traps, contact gods for more spells, or items to hit better or charges for more spells, etc...
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top