D&D (2024) Nerf to magic users?

[James Gasik]

Can you provide a page number for this?

This is something of an interesting topic, as Gary both warns against changing the system in the introduction on page 8-

But then in the afterword on page 230 says-

From what I've been given to understand, Gary knew that DM's would alter the rules to suit their games. But at the same time, was wary of people riding on his coattails and creating their own variant games, as well as wanting to make a clear distinction from D&D and AD&D for business purposes. Hence the "Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer AD&D".

That he himself didn't use all the rules in the PHB and DMG is well-documented, as Gary was an inveterate tinkerer- it's hypocritical for him to say that nobody else should do the same! But at the same time, he wanted everyone to play according to his "vision", like human-centric worlds, no monster characters, and being exceptionally harsh to those dirty, dirty players!

 

[Maxperson]

Can you provide a page number for this?

Of course.

Page 9 of the 1e DMG: "Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement."

And...

"As the DM, the tools of your trade are dice - platonic solid-shaped or just about any other sort. The random numbers you generate by rolling dice determine the results based on the probabilities determined herein or those you have set forth on your own."

And...

"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

And...

"To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it."

And page 230: "IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS."

That last bit is in caps to show the importance of the DM being above the rules.

 

[ECMO3]

Of course.

Page 9 of the 1e DMG: "Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement."

This is fundamentally different than your original claim.

You said "The DMG told DMs that they could alter whatever they wanted"

That is fundamentally different than "Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement."

"Whatever they wanted" is not even remotely the same as "as needed" and you conveniently left out that he specifically told you to follow the DMG except "as needed"

Further, the example he uses has nothing to do with game mechanics, he uses an example of forgoing wandering monster rolls when you have already planned specific encounters.

A better way to say this is:

Gygax told you to use the specific rules except as needed and then to cut or change portions outside of the major mechanics.

And...

"As the DM, the tools of your trade are dice - platonic solid-shaped or just about any other sort. The random numbers you generate by rolling dice determine the results based on the probabilities determined herein or those you have set forth on your own."

This is not about rules, it is about dice. The section is even labeled "DICE"

You completely take this out of context. What it is saying is you use dice to determine probabilities of outcomes. This section goes on to talk about the bell curve associated with 3d6 and the uniform distribution ("linear curve") associated with 1d100.

This has nothing to do with optional or official rules and is about how to set up probabilities so you can execute them with dice rolls when that is not captured in the rules.

For example, the rules give a basic 50% chance of a fighter at 1st level hitting an enemy with an AC 10 with an attack, what if the fighter wants to swing his sword at the door and you do not have an AC for that in the rules? You need to make that up. That is what this is talking about and it is what is meant by "those you have set forth on your own"!

"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

Back to an example regarding wandering mosnters! "Certain" rules is not "any" rule! And again you are taking this out of context and it is about wandering monsters, not game mechanics. He is saying players have made their way to the finale, don't throw a random encounter in there to screw it up.

Let me leave you with a quote from page 9, and one that puts all of this in context a lot better than those peices you cherry picked:

"And there are no optionals for the major systems of Advanced D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures game-to-game, campaign-to-campaign is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system."

Note underlined! This is what the intent of the DMG is; to have rigid, inflexible rules regarding game mechanics and to let the DM develop outside of those parameters. That is clear if you actually read the introduction in its entirety.

 

[Maxperson]

This is fundamentally different than your original claim.

You said "The DMG told DMs that they could alter whatever they wanted"

You're kidding right? What I quoted was literally telling the DM it's whatever he decides. I didn't really expect you to acknowledge the facts, though. I proved to you that 5e said the same thing and you denied that, too.

That is fundamentally different than "Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement."

Um, need is defined by the DM, not the players. Any rule he deems "needs" to change at any time, is one he can change as he sees fit.

"Whatever they wanted" is not even remotely the same as "as needed" and you conveniently left out that he specifically told you to follow the DMG except "as needed"

Further, the example he uses has nothing to do with game mechanics, he uses an example of forgoing wandering monster rolls when you have already planned specific encounters.

A better way to say this is:

Gygax told you to use the specific rules except as needed and then to cut or change portions.


This is not about rules, it is about dice. The section is even labeled "DICE"

You completely take this out of context. What it is saying is you use dice to determine probabilities of outcomes. This section goes on to talk about the bell curve associated with 3d6 and the uniform distribution ("linear curve") associated with 1d100.

This has nothing to do with optional or official rules and is about how to set up probabilities so you can execute them with dice rolls when that is not captured in the rules.

For example, the rules give a basic 50% chance of a fighter at 1st level hitting an AC 10 with an attack, what if he wants to attack a door and you do not have an AC for that? You need to make that percent up. That is what this is talking about and it is what is meant by "those you have set forth on your own"!



Back to an example regarding wandering mosnters! "Certain" rules is not "any" rule! And again you are taking this out of context and it is about wandering monsters, not game mechanics. He is saying players have made their way to the finale, don't throw a random encounter in there to screw it up.

Let me leave you with a quote from page 9, and one that puts all of this in context a lot better than those pieces you cherry picked:

"And there are no optionals for the major systems of Advanced D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures game-to-game, campaign-to-campaign is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system."

Note underlined!

Say what you want, nothing you quote can overcome the quotes I posted telling the DM he can change what he wants, but be careful when you do. You can't overcome the fact that Rule 0 was in 1e.

 

[ECMO3]

You're kidding right? What I quoted was literally telling the DM it's whatever he decides. I didn't really expect you to acknowledge the facts, though. I proved to you that 5e said the same thing and you denied that, too.

That is not what it says.

It says alter this as needed, NOT whatever you want. And the context is clearly ONLY as needed.

To give you an IRL example:

Whether I like it or not a police officer in my home town can use his firearm and employ lethal force to prevent injury or loss of life "as needed". Police can not use his firearm "whenever they want". Do you not understand the difference?

"As needed" means only change this if you need to. "Whatever you want" would mean change this if you don't like it or think there is a better way to do it. It is not only the wording, but the entire context of the introduction on page 9 shows his position is clearly the former.

Um, need is defined by the DM, not the players. Any rule he deems "needs" to change at any time, is one he can change as he sees fit.

First of all you are taking this out of context.

But even so. Even if this is what he was saying, "need" is different than "want" even in the context you are using it. Wanting to change a rule is not the same as "needing" to change a rule.

So saying a rule "needs" to be changed is NOT the same as saying it is "optional" or you can "change any rule you want". Even if you purposely twist what he was saying there, the DM woudl still NEED that change, not just want it. Because you can want something changed without it "needing" to be changed.

But as I said you are purposely twisting that paragraph to start with.

Say what you want, nothing you quote can overcome the quotes I posted telling the DM he can change what he wants, but be careful when you do. You can't overcome the fact that Rule 0 was in 1e.

You did not post a quote telling the DM to change "what he wants", but I will stand by and wait if you want to provide one.

I am also still waiting for something from Gygax in 1E stating DMs can alter "whatever they wanted" in the rules. I need something either with those words explicitly or something in context that meant essentially the same thing.

I will leave you again with a word-for-word quote since you seem intent on ignoring it:

"And there are no optionals for the major systems of Advanced D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures game-to-game, campaign-to-campaign is stressed)"

 

[Maxperson]

That is not what it says.

It says alter this as needed, NOT whatever you want. And the context is clearly ONLY as needed.

Who decides what is needed? When must they decide? Or can they decide whenever they want that something is needed?

To give you an IRL example:

Whether I like it or not a police officer in my home town can use his firearm and employ lethal force to prevent injury or loss of life "as needed". Police can not use his firearm "whenever they want". Do you not understand the difference?

Your False Equivalence is false. There is no one above the DM like there is for police officers.

For a real real life example, look at a dictator of a country who decides when laws need to be changed. You don't get to ignore all of the Rule 0 quotes that give the DM charge of the game.

First of all you are taking this out of context.

But even so. Even if this is what he was saying, "need" is different than "want" even in the context you are using it. Wanting to change a rule is not the same as "needing" to change a rule.

So saying a rule "needs" to be changed is NOT the same as saying it is "optional" or you can "change any rule you want". Even if you purposely twist what he was saying there, the DM woudl still NEED that change, not just want it. Because you can want something changed without it "needing" to be changed.

But as I said you are purposely twisting that paragraph to start with.



You did not post a quote telling the DM to change "what he wants", but I will stand by and wait if you want to provide one.

I am also still waiting for something from Gygax in 1E stating DMs can alter "whatever they wanted" in the rules. I need something either with those words explicitly or something in context that meant essentially the same thing.

I will leave you again with a word-for-word quote since you seem intent on ignoring it:

"And there are no optionals for the major systems of Advanced D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures game-to-game, campaign-to-campaign is stressed)"

He literally says, "never hold to the letter written" and he says not to allow rules lawyers to tell the DM what's what. The reason is that Rule 0 exists in 1e. It always has and always will. If you dispute that, I can only conclude that you have never actually played 1e and have simply read a few things about such that you think you know differently from everyone else.

Are you truly arguing that you are correct and everyone else who knows that 1e had Rule 0 is wrong?

 

[ECMO3]

Who decides what is needed? When must they decide? Or can they decide whenever they want that something is needed?

Well the intro lays out a methodology to do that, and the DM decides, but something is not "needed" just because the DM wants it.

Your False Equivalence is false. There is no one above the DM like there is for police officers.

For a real real life example, look at a dictator of a country who decides when laws need to be changed. You don't get to ignore all of the Rule 0 quotes that give the DM charge of the game.

But those laws don't really necessarily "need" to change. The dictator wants them to change.

He literally says, "never hold to the letter written" and he says not to allow rules lawyers to tell the DM what's what. The reason is that Rule 0 exists in 1e. It always has and always will. If you dispute that, I can only conclude that you have never actually played 1e and have simply read a few things about such that you think you know differently from everyone else.

He also says "no rules are optional" and you are taking where he says that out of context. He is talking specifically about elements that disrupt the story and the adventure you laid out.

Are you truly arguing that you are correct and everyone else who knows that 1e had Rule 0 is wrong?

No, not everyhone else. Only those who keep insisting there are optional rules in 1E, when multiple hardcover books state that is not true .... the DMG literally.

 

[James Gasik]

So I carefully looked over all my 1e books, and I actually found evidence that supports ECMO3's stance. The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide is certainly written from the standpoint that it is an official rules supplement and that it's rules are simply to be considered a part of the game. That alone would be debatable, but then I saw this:

Of all the rules in the DSG, only a few are specifically called optional, such as Hypothermia, and Non-Weapon Proficiencies ("The proficiencies herein represent an optional addition to the rules set..."). I think the implication is fairly solid- the DSG is almost entirely intended to be actual rules of the game, non-optional.

What this means for groups that didn't actually own the DSG is left unsaid (presumably they wouldn't be playing playing the "complete and official" version of AD&D). The reality is, every group used, misused, abused, discarded, or entirely replaced the AD&D rules at their leisure since outside of the very limited forms of official play, it wasn't like they could do anything about it- it's a very similar state as Magic the Gathering is in- if you want to play your Time Vault deck at home, there's nothing WotC can do about it (though your friends may have something to say!), but it's certainly banned in most official formats!

 

[Maxperson]

So I carefully looked over all my 1e books, and I actually found evidence that supports ECMO3's stance. The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide is certainly written from the standpoint that it is an official rules supplement and that it's rules are simply to be considered a part of the game. That alone would be debatable, but then I saw this:
View attachment 343553
Of all the rules in the DSG, only a few are specifically called optional, such as Hypothermia, and Non-Weapon Proficiencies ("The proficiencies herein represent an optional addition to the rules set..."). I think the implication is fairly solid- the DSG is almost entirely intended to be actual rules of the game, non-optional.

What this means for groups that didn't actually own the DSG is left unsaid (presumably they wouldn't be playing playing the "complete and official" version of AD&D). The reality is, every group used, misused, abused, discarded, or entirely replaced the AD&D rules at their leisure since outside of the very limited forms of official play, it wasn't like they could do anything about it- it's a very similar state as Magic the Gathering is in- if you want to play your Time Vault deck at home, there's nothing WotC can do about it (though your friends may have something to say!), but it's certainly banned in most official formats!

Gygax over and over tells the DM in the 1e DMG that he is the final arbiter and the players have no recourse to overturn the DM's rules decisions other than to leave the game.

What he is doing in the DMG is saying that the rules are hard coded, but can be changed by the DM if the DM wants them changed. They are not optional in the sense that you have to opt into it like the survival guide rule above, but rather than the rules are in play unless the DM opts out(changes or removes the rule). Rule 0 has always been in D&D.

In D&D optional rules = opt in. Hard rules = opt out. Only the DM can engage the optioning.

Edit: Oh, and this is in the 1e PHB on page 8.

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse - since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign. Each campaign is a specially tailored affair. While it is drawn by the referee upon the outlines of the three books which comprise ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, the players add the color and details, so the campaign must ultimately please all participants."

 

[ECMO3]

Gygax over and over tells the DM in the 1e DMG that he is the final arbiter and the players have no recourse to overturn the DM's rules decisions other than to leave the game.

What he is doing in the DMG is saying that the rules are hard coded, but can be changed by the DM if the DM wants them changed. They are not optional in the sense that you have to opt into it like the survival guide rule above, but rather than the rules are in play unless the DM opts out(changes or removes the rule).

That is not what he is saying AT ALL.

He is saying the DM is final arbitor.

This is exacttly like the head referee in the Superbowl is the final arbitor of the NFL rules during the Superbowl That doesn't mean the referee can change or waive the NFL rules to suit his personal style or preferences.

He is the one whio interprets them and that interpretation is final, but he does not change them.

Rule 0 has always been in D&D.

I did not and still do not see it at all in any 1E hardcover publication.

You have provided examples that do not explicitly state rule 0, but rather imply it in some very narrow and confined circumstances. Having such narrow circumstances is itself contrary to the intent and meaning of Rule o in the modern context.

Hard rules = opt out. Only the DM can engage the optioning.

I see nothing siggesting this in 1E.

Edit: Oh, and this is in the 1e PHB on page 8.

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game.

Yes, in many places and the meaning of this is elaborated on regularly, but it does not include the actual mechanics of the game.

What Gygaz is talking about here is the things that are not elaborated on in the rules. This is clear from both the context and his commentary from elsewhere.

This is very different in tone and context as compared to 5E where literally everything is by the DM purview.

Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely.

This speaks volumes - don't make up your own explanation, write a letter to TSR and we will tell you how it works!

THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN

His campaign, not the rules and mechanics of the game.