D&D General On Powerful Classes, 1e, and why the Original Gygaxian Gatekeeping Failed

[Rob Kuntz]

Hind sight is 20/20. We had only 1 game from Arneson to digest the system. then his notes, typed, and then we went gonzo on it, with it in the playtests. The rules, 10 pages to start, grew in the backwash of the playtests, page by page. Normally rules are fashioned up front and then playtested, but not in this case as we had to re-emulate what Arneson and his group had attained in over 1 year of playing BM; and Gary decided on a more "progression" styled advance for Characters. This defined the system in all ways thereafter, warts and all. It is obviously styled on the old systems of linear progression and it works. Is it realistic? Well, no. It's an abstraction of what we say is Fantasy because Fantasy has no concrete data and history like simulation games do. That Gary carried it forth to AD&D is impressive; and he admitted that the rules (OD&D) were likely unfinished but that the concept had to get out there, he felt, in order to finish them. This concept had never before existed in systems/published games. That is the biggest context and to dismiss its generative days as flawed is quite preposterous. Kinda like saying that, by today's standards. that the Model-T Ford was flawed compared to a Mustang.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's a fascinating look at the world as presented under the game rules, far more than a bland "anyone can be any class to any level" take that later editions have, and this kind of reading between the lines to reveal hidden truths about the game world is why I still hold earlier editions of D&D in such high regard.

That is a GREAT analysis.

That said, I wonder how much of that is purposeful, and how much of that is an unintended consequence of various sections in other books (such as Deities and Demigods) running into Gygax's famous, "This is a humano-centric game" as embodied in the level caps?

Just because there are cans of Calumet Baking soda in the pantry doesn't mean that The Shining is about American imperialism.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's exactly correct. If you were coming from OD&D and transitioning to AD&D, you likely used the 3d6 as a default and were just adapting the new rules.

The four methods of rolling in the DMG (which is why the UA method is, of course, Method V) are listed as alternatives to the assumed baseline of 3d6, in order.

After discussing how 3d6 can create marginal characters that might discourage new players, the DMG says "Four alternatives are offered for player characters:" (emphasis mine).

To put it more bluntly- AD&D is a codification and expansion of the OD&D rules (despite whatever certain lawsuits might have alleged). 3d6, in order, is the default, and acknowledged as such. The methods proffered in the DMG are alternatives to the default.

Whether it's because it was listed first, or because it's by far the easiest to implement, 4d6k1 became the alternative that most people were familiar with. Perhaps because rolling twelve characters and selecting the one you want sound annoying (Method IV).

I thought I recalled the DMG presenting Method I as the preferred default.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I thought I recalled the DMG presenting Method I as the preferred default.

No, it's just the first alternative listed (the default is 3d6 in order). But in fairness, it's the first one listed and by far the easiest so it makes sense that it became the de facto method of rolling.

Method II was to roll 3d6 12 times and keep the 6 best scores.
Method III was ... oh boy .... roll 3d6 in order for each ability, except you got to roll 6 times and keep the highest score.
Method IV was to to roll up 12 characters by rolling 3d6 in order, and keep the best character.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm fairly certain 3d6 in order is not presented as the default- it's recognized as the default in the prior game, but no longer suitable for the higher-powered ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Am I completely misremembering?

 

[Alzrius]

I'm fairly certain 3d6 in order is not presented as the default- it's recognized as the default in the prior game, but no longer suitable for the higher-powered ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Am I completely misremembering?

Here's what the text of the DMG (page 11) says:

 

[billd91]

I'm fairly certain 3d6 in order is not presented as the default- it's recognized as the default in the prior game, but no longer suitable for the higher-powered ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Am I completely misremembering?

You are not misremembering at all. There is no “default” method in 1e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm fairly certain 3d6 in order is not presented as the default- it's recognized as the default in the prior game, but no longer suitable for the higher-powered ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game. Am I completely misremembering?

Default isn't quite the right word for OD&D, because it implies other options existed. And in OD&D, they didn't. Not only was 3d6 in order the only way, it was rolled by the DM and not the players:

 

[Marc_C]

Default isn't quite the right word for OD&D, because it implies other options existed. And in OD&D, they didn't. Not only was 3d6 in order the only way, it was rolled by the DM and not the players:

View attachment 135935

And the Referee, not the players, rolled for the six Abilities. ;-)

 

[Charlaquin]

No, it's just the first alternative listed (the default is 3d6 in order). But in fairness, it's the first one listed and by far the easiest so it makes sense that it became the de facto method of rolling.

Method II was to roll 3d6 12 times and keep the 6 best scores.
Method III was ... oh boy .... roll 3d6 in order for each ability, except you got to roll 6 times and keep the highest score.
Method IV was to to roll up 12 characters by rolling 3d6 in order, and keep the best character.

I actually kind of like the sound of method IV. Especially if instead of discarding the other 11 characters you kept them as potential henchmen to your “primary” PC and backups in case they die.