D&D (2024) Nerf to magic users?

[Maxperson]

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.




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.



I see nothing siggesting this in 1E.



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.



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



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

That's a lot of words to ignore the flat out, "The rules are not cut and dried" quote. Rule 0 exists and is commonly accepted(because it's fact) as being in 1e. You want the rules to be cut and dried, but they aren't. The DM can pick and choose, altering what he feels the game needs. Until you can show a quote that says, "The DM can never change anything unless the table votes that it is needed," you won't be correct on this. The DM will decide what changes are "needed" using whatever criteria he wishes.

 

[Distracted DM]

It's a joke video, he's just reading off rules related to magic users from older versions of DND to criticize how powerful magic users are in 5E.

I'm confused, OP says it's a leak. Is it actually a joke and he's just reading from early edition books, and OP misunderstood?

 

[ECMO3]

That's a lot of words to ignore the flat out, "The rules are not cut and dried" quote.

Exactly, they require judgement, they are not cut and dried, but they are still the rules and not subject to arbitrary change.

To use my NFL example again - pass inteference or holding is not cut and dry, it requires judgement by the referee on each play. It is the same in 1E D&D.

The referee (or DM) must use his judgement to interpret and apply what is written in the rulebook and apply it to the game being played. That does not give him carte blanche to change the rules themselves. That is not supported anywhere except very narrow circumstances related to specific games and situations.

Rule 0 exists and is commonly accepted(because it's fact) as being in 1e.

Where is it stated then? It is not commonly accepted by anyone I played 1E with over the last 44 years and it was not in line with what Gygax said in the books or in other commentary.

You want the rules to be cut and dried, but they aren't. The DM can pick and choose, altering what he feels the game needs.

The rules are NOT cut and dried and the DM can NOT pick and choose what ones he wants to use.

Nothing anywhere in any official 1E book supports the idea that the DM can pick and choose and several places even say he can't, or that the rules are "dictums".

In 1E, RAW the DM's job is to interpret the rules, not to decide which ones the group should use and which they should change.

The DM will decide what changes are "needed" using whatever criteria he wishes.

Earlier you said the DM could alter "whatever they wanted"

Are you backing away from this now and suggesting a DM can only do it when "needed"? This is what I said 4 or 5 posts ago!

I "want" a newer, bigger house and another 6 cars. But I don't "need" them. Which is it?

 

[ECMO3]

Double Post

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly, they require judgement, they are not cut and dried, but they are still the rules and not subject to arbitrary change.

To use my NFL example again - pass inteference or holding is not cut and dry, it requires judgement by the referee on each play. It is the same in 1E D&D.

The referee (or DM) must use his judgement to interpret and apply what is written in the rulebook and apply it to the game being played. That does not give him carte blanche to change the rules themselves. That is not supported anywhere except very narrow circumstances related to specific games and situations.

You'll need to prove that.

I'm running 1e and I don't like lower female racial stat caps, so I need to change the rule. Can I do that? If not, show me the page and quote that says I can't do that. If I can, then I can literally change rules as I see fit. All I have to do is say I need to do it and declare it so.

 

[James Gasik]

You'll need to prove that.

I'm running 1e and I don't like lower female racial stat caps, so I need to change the rule. Can I do that? If not, show me the page and quote that says I can't do that. If I can, then I can literally change rules as I see fit. All I have to do is say I need to do it and declare it so.

I mean, even if the books said you can't, nothing stops you. Nothing ever stopped anyone from playing any edition of D&D the way they wanted to.

As I pointed out upthread, the books really are written in a way that assumes "of course you'll run the game using all the rules!", while only occasionally outright stating "this is an optional rule". I mean, you see that even to this day, with things like Encumbrance in the PHB- if all rules are optional, why bother labeling something as such?

1e in particular was written in a very ambiguous way when it came to telling people what they could do with the game. Again, as I stated above, we can only speculate as to the reasons. Was it Gary's ego? An attempt to drive a wedge between AD&D and the original D&D (plus the other games that were spawned in imitation)? A slam against third-party developers like Judge's Guild? Who knows!

At the end of the day, however, Gary often spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Finding a quote in a rulebook or Dragon Magazine, or elsewhere that supports one or the other side of this debate (and many, many others) is all too easy. And it doesn't matter what he or any of the other TSR staff wrote- I have never encountered two DM's games that were exactly the same. Even if they were bound to use the same rules without changing them (ala public play), their interpretations of the many many grey areas of the game made them distinct entities.

So why don't we just put this debate to rest? It's quite evident that most, if not all 1e products were considered to be essential by TSR at the time. This certainly fits "a" definition of "core", but not in the way WotC uses the term- ie, the minimum amount of books necessary to play the game.

2e is even worse- the Tome of Magic and The Book of Artifacts were seen as "core rulebooks", and all the DM and Player reference books as well. And over time, even things that were stated to be optional in the PHB, like Non-Weapon Proficiencies, were assumed to be the standard.

TSR never had a clear vision of "core rulebooks". Anything that expanded the game rules and helped you run and play games could be equally valid and considered "necessary". At no time did that matter- it's quite improbable to think every group owned every book- indeed, for many years, even having access to books could be problematic, if you didn't have a game store near you! When I started playing, I had the PHB, DMG, and the Monster Manual. I could check out the Wilderness and Dungeoneer's Survival Guides and the Fiend Folio from the Joliet Public Library.

There was no game store in the city (the "hobby store" catered to traditional hobbies like models, model trains, and Estes rockets). It wasn't until I moved to another community that I could regularly go to a hobby store (the long-extinct Castle Hobbies in Bradley) and even then, they didn't have every book!

Would Gary say I wasn't playing AD&D? Who cares?

 

[CommodoreKong]

I'm confused, OP says it's a leak. Is it actually a joke and he's just reading from early edition books, and OP misunderstood?

Yes the OP misunderstood the video wasn't meant to be serious and was a critique of how 5E's magic users are pretty overpowered compared to older versions of D&D.

 

[ECMO3]

You'll need to prove that.

I'm running 1e and I don't like lower female racial stat caps, so I need to change the rule. Can I do that? If not, show me the page and quote that says I can't do that. If I can, then I can literally change rules as I see fit. All I have to do is say I need to do it and declare it so.

Right in the PHB Gygax talks about racial and gender limits:

You find no pretentious dictums herin, no baseless limits placed on female strength or male charisma .... Races are given advantages or disadvantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise ..... Everything in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons has purpose; most of what is found herin is essential to the campaign and those sections which are not - such as subclasses of characters, psionics, and similar material - are clearly labeled as such.

So yeah, those limits on female strength, which Gygax factually put in the game 3 pages later, according to him are not "pretentious", not "baseless" and are "essential" to the game.

Certainly you can do what you want at your table and no one is going to come in and arrest you, but Gygax tells you that you are playing something "drastically" different than the game of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons if you do these kinds of things.

 

[Maxperson]

Right in the PHB Gygax talks about racial and gender limits:

You find no pretentious dictums herin, no baseless limits placed on female strength or male charisma .... Races are given advantages or disadvantages or limits mainly because the whole character of the game would be drastically altered if it were otherwise ..... Everything in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons has purpose; most of what is found herin is essential to the campaign and those sections which are not - such as subclasses of characters, psionics, and similar material - are clearly labeled as such.

So yeah, those limits on female strength, which Gygax factually put in the game 3 pages later, according to him are not "pretentious", not "baseless" and are "essential" to the game.

Certainly you can do what you want at your table and no one is going to come in and arrest you, but Gygax tells you that you are playing something "drastically" different than the game of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons if you do these kinds of things.

Now. Show me where it says in the book what "need" means. Something that I must follow. Because not one word of that quote tells me or anyone else what I must follow in order for my need to be genuine need. I have defined need as what I want. Where in the book is that explicitly wrong?

And no, he does not say that changing that rule makes it drastically different. What he really says is that if you do it a lot, and he fails to define what a lot means, it becomes drastically different.

So again, where does he define what is required for me to "need" to change the rule?

P.S. Gygax also said later that...

"Your alternation doesn't disturb me in the least. Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game."

P.P.S. Gygax according to your post there never ran D&D, but something "drastically different." Here is also what he said,

"Whoa, and I have to think hard about those questions. Generally, I just DMed on the fly, so to speak, and didn't use the rules books except for random encounters, monster stats, and treasure."

And...

"when hand-to-hand fighting occurred I usually did that seat-of-the-pants rules--asking what the character was doing and deciding on the chance for success based on the circumstances."

And...

"I did not use psionics, generally ignored weapons vs. armor type and weapon speed."

And...

"When an opponent was helpless I always allowed an immediate kill if of lower level; otherwise a successful hit killed, a "miss" doing double damage anyway."

So your contention is that the creator of D&D didn't play D&D?

 

[ECMO3]

P.S. Gygax also said later that...

"Your alternation doesn't disturb me in the least. Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game."

P.P.S. Gygax according to your post there never ran D&D, but something "drastically different." Here is also what he said,

"Whoa, and I have to think hard about those questions. Generally, I just DMed on the fly, so to speak, and didn't use the rules books except for random encounters, monster stats, and treasure."

Ok, to start with it is not clear what game he is talking about here. Gygax ran D&D but from his POV when he wrote the rulebooks for AD&D, DD was is a different game.

You could play D&D (red box or white box) without following any if the rules in 1E AD&D and D&D was a completely separate and different game than AD7D (from Gary's point of view). Gygax even went to court to say it was a completely different game than (and lost).

So your contention is that the creator of D&D didn't play D&D?

No. When he was doing those things he was not playing AD&D 1e as he wrote that it should be played. He was still playing D&D, just not the version he exclusively wrote in the manner he wrote that it should be played. He was either playing D&D or some hombrew game.