D&D General On Grognardism...

[Ifurita'sFan]

It's hard to respond to a giant wall of text, but I wanted to point out this part. As a fan of 1e, and as my preferred edition I played from 1981 to as recently as 2012, I am pretty familiar with the actual rulebooks. I suggest you open them back up. I'm guessing you started playing before me, but it appears you haven't actually looked at the 1e rulebooks in a long while.\

I have had a couple responses to your earlier posts that I've nearly posted but which I then asked myself, do you really want to respond to someone that is clearly this combative and clearly looking for a fight, and I erased them.

A question for you, do you not realize that this thread is about what we think and feel is unique about the earlier systems and how it speaks to us as individuals?

That means you saying "BUT YOU'RE WRONG" is you saying "NO THATS NOT WHAT YOU THINK! I KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY THINK BETTER THAN YOU DO. YOU THINK THIS INSTEAD"

Do you not see the sheer out and outright disrespect of this sort of attitude?

Me, I have disrespect for a game system, but I don't have disrespect for people. I am not accusing you of being wrong, or trying to invalidate your opinions, while you are clearly not showing me the same respect. Adjust your attitude please.

If you do not see this, message me directly and we can discuss this man to man, I'll be happy to pick up the phone or skype or whatever and we can work out whatever has your dander up. Fair?

Now, to the point.

P9 1e DMG
Col 1 Paragraph 5.

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.

Gary and others went more into this later in other works and in later (2e) dmg, saying clearly that the rules as presented in the DMG were guidelines and that ultimately it was the DM's job to choose what he wanted for his game.

And what you quote as being optional aren't.

Except they are. As pointed out above

Well, they weren't called out as such.

Again points up.

I'm sorry, but your arguments hold no water and are factually inaccurate.

See the start of my response. Message me at your convenience.

 

[Ifurita'sFan]

Well, it all got standardized; and, unfortunately, as @Sacrosanct points out, Gary lead the charge with that, even though he personally never DMed that way. WotC has continued with the standardization started with AD&D and perfected it.

Except Sacrosanct is wrong. As I pointed out, Gary gave very clear consent to "and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement" yes Gary did try to standardize D&D to a degree to help people not make the same mistakes he and his playtesters did in earlier iterations and while trying out new classes, races, and rules changes. And yes, Gary never DMed using the base rules, he used home rules aplenty, I'd know. And that should be a clear indication of how he intended the rules to be received, as a set of guidelines, like training wheels to help fledgling dms and player find a firm footing, and then modify and play as best worked for them. Standardization was intended for giving people what's called a "base case" or "happy path" Everything else springs from there and should be welcomed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I have had a couple responses to your earlier posts that I've nearly posted but which I then asked myself, do you really want to respond to someone that is clearly this combative and clearly looking for a fight, and I erased them.

A question for you, do you not realize that this thread is about what we think and feel is unique about the earlier systems and how it speaks to us as individulas?

That means you saying "BUT YOU'RE WRONG" is you saying "NO THATS NOT WHAT YOU THINK! I KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY THINK BETTER THAN YOU DO. YOU THINK THIS INSTEAD"

Do you not see the sheer out and outright disrespect and hubris of saying that?

Me, I have disrespect for a game system, but I don't have disrespect for people. I am not accusing you of being wrong, or trying to invalidate your opinions, while you are clearly not showing me the same respect. Adjust your attitude please.

If you do not see this, message me directly and we can discuss this man to man, I'll be happy to pick up the phone or skype or whatever and we can work out whatever has your dander up. Fair?

YOU were the one to start your discussion edition warring, and making false claims to do so, not me. This isn't a matter of opinion or telling you what you think, this is you making demonstratedly false claims (like saying you read 10 pages and no one listed the parts of the system they liked, when clearly that isn't true). If someone pointing out to you that the basis of your argument used to disparage other systems is objectively wrong, and you take that as a personal attack or disrespect, that speaks more of you than me. You're welcome to your opinions, and I couldn't care less about them. But you are not entitled to treating your opinions as fact, especially when they have been proven to be otherwise.

Now, to the point.

P9 1e DMG
Col 1 Paragraph 5.

The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as if is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.

Gary and others went more into this later in other works and in later (2e) dmg, saying clearly that the rules as presented in the DMG were guidelines and that ultimately it was the DM's job to choose what he wanted for his game.



Except they are. As pointed out above

Again points up.

See the start of my response. Message me at your convenience.

I'll repeat what I said above, because it seems you've missed it even though you quoted it :
"I mean, sure they were optional in so far as any rule is optional, but to say they were optional while inferring that modern rules for skill checks aren't is disingenuous."

You made disparaging attacks on other editions based on false claims. Me pointing those out to you isn't an attack. It's simply calling out double standards when making an argument to attack other editions. You make a comment about modern editions and WoTC forcing RAW when that's only in AL (which is the same as AD&D did with the RPGA), and then make a citation like this above to infer all rules in AD&D were optional while ignoring how the DMG in 5e says the same thing. Those are double standards I'm referring to. If you don't want those pointed out, then don't make them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except Sacrosanct is wrong.

No I'm not. Regardless of how Gary played personally, it is a fact that in the preface of the DMG, he says stresses several times how you should not deviate from the rules, calling it "dangerous' as a matter of fact. This is something that is easily verifiable by looking the actual words in that preface.

What you're doing is saying that all rules in 1e are optional by a later vague comment, and saying WoTC is forcing RAW instead of rulings, despite the 5e DMG literally saying:

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game.​

​

It’s Your World​

In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them. The subsequent sections of this chapter address each element and give details on how to flesh out your world with gods, factions, and so forth.

The assumptions sketched out above aren’t carved in stone. They inspire exciting D&D worlds full of adventure, but they’re not the only set of assumptions that can do so. You can build an interesting campaign concept by altering one or more of those core assumptions, just as well-established D&D worlds have done. Ask yourself, “What if the standard assumptions weren’t true in my world?”


Of the two editions, which one says following the rules is critical, and deviating from them is dangerous? It's not 5e. And yet, you're trying to make the argument that is literally the opposite of what each rulebook actually says. This isn't my opinion or your opinion, this is actual text from the books.

 

[Ifurita'sFan]

YOU were the one to start your discussion edition warring, and making false claims to do so, not me. This isn't a matter of opinion or telling you what you think, this is you making demonstratedly false claims (like saying you read 10 pages and no one listed the parts of the system they liked, when clearly that isn't true).

You are the one that started this with accusations of "rife with speculation and nothing concrete." This is a ridiculous attempt at provocation and was frankly beneath me to reply to other than to point out that starting a post by claiming another's "posts are rife" with anything or that there is "nothing concrete" in them, is a base attempt at provocation via insult by claiming their opinion has no merit and shows a disturbing lack of character. There, now that is an insult. The fine gentleman that I replied to read what I had to say and saw at least in part what I was saying and put it in terms of Art and negative space. He understood, something clearly you did not.

That said I beg to differ that you laid out in detail an answer to the specific question as you claimed you had. The question as asked, was

"If you think RPG design peaked in the late 70s, what about that design speaks to you so strongly?"

you stated

"the things that appealed to me the most about early D&D were rulings over rules,"

In my opinion that is not you answering the question about what about the DESIGN speaks to you, at all. How people interpreted or ruled on the rules, is not design, it is the minutia of defining ambiguities in the rules, as a designer you should know, that is not design. And while that is an entirely valid (for you) reason why you liked it and I'd not gainsay you your preference or cast aspersions on you for deriving enjoyment from the system in that way. (That you gain pleasure in the discussion and clarification of the rules and the reasons behind them is absolutely a valid reason to enjoy something,) But it really doesn't speak to the design itself, does it? So, you did not answer the posters question as it was asked, did you? The answer should be obvious that NO you did not.

Further you stated;
I don't think it "Peaked" in the late 70s, but that style of play has an appeal to me, and it's not just nostalgia. As I mention in the preface of the OSR project I'm working on:

Now that is partially on topic, explaining that you feel it did not peak in the 70's kudos to you on that score. I likewise think it still hasn't peaked. There is always a higher peak to reach for.

"I firmly believe that just because an edition may be newer (even if it does a lot of great things), that it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be a better experience for everyone, and thus I honestly feel like there is room in the modern gaming world to enjoy an old school style of game play and to give gamers that option."

Again, in my opinion you failed to answer the question. You mentioned a like for the style of play, not what in the game design appeals or fails to appeal to you. A style of play can be encouraged or discouraged by constructing the game experience to reflect that style, but style of play does not speak to the design of the system.

If you disagree with this summary, please indicate why you feel you answered the question.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You are the one that started this with accusations of "rife with speculation and nothing concrete." This is a ridiculous attempt at provocation and was frankly beneath me to reply to other than to point out that starting a post by claiming another's "posts are rife" with anything or that there is "nothing concrete" in them, is a base attempt at provocation via insult by claiming their opinion has no merit and shows a disturbing lack of character. There, now that is an insult.

Your posts were rife with speculation and nothing concrete. That's not an attack. That's a fact. You entirely speculated why the survey results were how they were, unless you have some proof to back your claim up. And your other comments about how each edition is structured were factually untrue, as has been shown.

I'm sorry you seem to take disagreement of your claims as a personal attack or insult. I'd suggest if you want to avoid that, then stop making false claims and edition warring.

In my opinion that is not you answering the question about what about the DESIGN speaks to you, at all.

As far as design, I said this:

" ...rulings over rules, easy to modify to your own preferences, speed of play, lethality (sense of danger) and the emphasis on creating your own gameworlds and adventures."

Those things are speaking to the actual mechanics and design. I note how you omitted the last part of that sentence in your quote however. Perhaps if you didn't omit the parts that contradict your argument, you wouldn't have an argument...

 

[Lanefan]

3. Official events and Adventurer's league type things are being instructed to push the rules and game mechanics.
From the Adventures league DM Guide. p3

THE RULES OF THE GAME
Adventurers League play uses fifth edition Dungeons and
Dragons. You can issue rulings to your table when the rules of
the game are ambiguous or vague, but you must otherwise
adhere to the rules as they are provided in the core rulebooks,
and can’t change them or make up your own; “house-rules”
aren’t permitted for use. You must always use the most
current incarnation of a rule.​

I'd suggest you think about that. This is how the WotC is running things. That you must follow THEIR rules, and only theirs with the implication that doing otherwise makes you "other", and you must keep your game using the most current incarnation of those rules.

In fairness this was also true with regards to the RPGA in 1e / TSR days: you had to play it pretty much by the book, mostly so chatacters could be transferred from one game ot another without too many headaches.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Gary did try to standardize D&D to a degree to help people not make the same mistakes he and his playtesters did

We, that is, Gary and myself as play-testers, co-designers and co-DMs, made no mistakes, whatever that means.

Gary standardized the rules for 3 reasons:

1) In a move to extricate Arneson from AD&D and thus from the initial concept, which TSR lost in an out of court settlement;
2) To sell adventure modules one had to have a consistent, standardized rules set--TSR's catalog AD&D era was 80% adventures; it was about empowering TSR's market, mostly. The RPGA was a mirror image of that;
3) To guard against encroaching competition from other RPG companies.

Just for the record Gary never played by the rules, he was the rule as a DM, so was I. That philosophy originated (commercially) with OD&D, but even though it was mentioned as "possible" in AD&D, that old ideal was subsequently squashed by the newly minted Random House deal in concert with the burgeoning of TSR's customer base because of that, which introduced a tidal wave of predominantly by the book players who were groomed to purchase pre-made materials and who had not experienced the previous DIY model we at first extolled and made successful (i.e., a full 100% of players roughly 1974-1977 were DIY only). With the changed and standardized rules leagued with pre-made adventures (1977-present) DIY has diametrically decreased to the point of insignificance. Your assuredness is misplaced, kinda like saying that even though the circus pulled out of town their tent stakes are still there. I should know, I watched it rise to its apex and then fall overnight to an establishment model. Its blood was shed long ago, and only droplets remain to be curiously examined, kinda like any ancient ruin...

 

[Ifurita'sFan]

No I'm not.

Yes you are, and this quote
" The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement"
proves it.

He is saying it very clearly to paraphrase, "Learn the rules, understand them in context, then cut what you want. " That he says in the preface that he expects you to add to it, and later says "cut portions as needed" is pretty freakin' clear.

I can say that this was his attitude in general because, as I mentioned, I did in fact work with Gary, happy to provide proof of it if you like, and spoke extensively with him about his thoughts on rules, home brews, and their applications thereof. His goal in 1e was not what you claim it to be.
in fact here ya go. I even got a "who rocks" out of him.

Regardless of how Gary played personally, it is a fact that in the preface of the DMG, he says stresses several times how you should not deviate from the rules, calling it "dangerous' as a matter of fact. This is something that is easily verifiable by looking the actual words in that preface.

you mean this?

When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy. And as long as your campaign remains viable, it will continue a slow process of change and growth. In this lies a great danger, however. The systems and parameters contained in the whole of ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS are based on a great deal of knowledge, experience gained through discussion, play, testing, questioning, and (hopefully) personal insight.
Limitations, checks, balances, and all the rest are placed into the system in order to assure that what is based thereon will be a superior campaign, a campaign which offers the most interesting play possibilities to the greatest number of participants for the longest period of time possible.

Or do you mean this.

The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesirable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign.

Or this?

Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been built into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of ADVANCED D8D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity...

So, let's see... he acknowledges that the campaign, and even the rules and complexity of your games will change and grow over time, and he warns against having a mutable system that will create short lived campaigns if the participants become too strong and powerful too quickly. So he warned against the dangers of munchkins, min maxers, and optimizers and running a system that caters to them...And this is him warning about deviating from the rules as canon is where precisely?

What you're doing is saying that all rules in 1e are optional by a later vague comment, and saying WoTC is forcing RAW instead of rulings, despite the 5e DMG literally saying:

It’s Your World​

In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them. The subsequent sections of this chapter address each element and give details on how to flesh out your world with gods, factions, and so forth.

The assumptions sketched out above aren’t carved in stone. They inspire exciting D&D worlds full of adventure, but they’re not the only set of assumptions that can do so. You can build an interesting campaign concept by altering one or more of those core assumptions, just as well-established D&D worlds have done. Ask yourself, “What if the standard assumptions weren’t true in my world?”


Of the two editions, which one says following the rules is critical, and deviating from them is dangerous? It's not 5e. And yet, you're trying to make the argument that is literally the opposite of what each rulebook actually says. This isn't my opinion or your opinion, this is actual text from the books.

You seem to be claiming that Gary warned "deviating from the rules is dangerous". Is that what you're saying? If so please state it directly, say
"Gary said that the rules are critical and deviating from them is dangerous"
I can find no such statement to that effect from him saying this in the preface.
I've included the only uses of "dangerous" in that entire preface. Perhaps you are mistaken?

 

[RealAlHazred]

Essentially Adventurers League is the 5E incarnation of the old RPGA, then. So standard rules would be the norm and expected.

I also ran RPGA stuff previously for years, and agree wholeheartedly. Nothing much changed in the approach of the Organized Play campaign to rulings and houserules. I wasn't a member of it when the RPGA was 1st edition/2nd edition AD&D, but I have to think that it was pretty much the same. I've spoken with long-time members who remember characters with hundreds of magic items and hundreds of hours of playtime.