Back in the day...

[grodog]

I saw your query on Gary's list, Merric I was going to suggest that you start up the Gygax Q&A thread again here with that as the lead question, but you beat me to the punch.

PC pinged Gary on the Q&A thread, and Gary said that he'd probably be slower in response, but that we could open the floodgates once more....

 

[Orius]

and also added some detrimental ones... like the thief and the paladin as classes.

?!!?

You say some very strange things sometimes, diaglo.

 

[Orius]

House Rules galore! This was part of what was happening at the time of the release of AD&D. Where today you can go from one game to another and know most of the rules, back in 77 and 78, the entire game might have changed on you!

One can imagine how that could cause problems at tournaments, and in those days, tournaments were seen as more competitive (akin to wargaming and chess) than today.

I've read about that. About how DMs would have to create their own magic items and adventures and stuff from scratch because none of the stuff existed yet. And then you could start throwing stuff like Arduin into the mix... Wow, I think it's kind of a shame that I missed those days, some of that must have been pretty fun.

 

[Orius]

These players argue constantly. These players count skill points. These players read up and remember monster weaknesses. These players track XP on their character sheets to go hunting for more when they get close to levelling up. These players hassle the DM constantly to see if they can add skill points and feats. These players bring no personality for their characters to the table, just a min/maxed set of numbers.

Yeah, but weren't things like that to some extent with players in the old days?

I mean that sounds a lot like KotD, and that comic reflects a lot of real gamers out there, escpecially old-school gamers. Minmaxing didn't originate with 3e, nor did video games of any stripe cause it to evolve.

 

[Orius]

I can only suggest it must be the system, and the way it puts the game across to new players. They are taught that this is a strategic simulation of dice rolling and collecting stuff. They are taught that characters only survive if they have at least average wealth for their level and items that boost every conceivable stat and some others. [..] As a DM I cut my teeth on AD&D, and DM'd right through 2e, and this doesn't feel right to me.

Oddly enough, that's an old school way to play to me. I played Basic and 1e that way, but never played 3e that way. My experience is exactly opposite from yours. But I played Basic and 1e with folks in junior high and 3e with folks who were, at least, college grads. I think that's the difference, not the system.

Perhaps those rules are in the book preciesly for the benefit of more novice players and DMs. When I first started out, I too was a much more by the book sort of guy. These days, however, I'm more comfortable tinkering around with the rules and such because I understand game balance better.

 

[MerricB]

Perhaps those rules are in the book preciesly for the benefit of more novice players and DMs. When I first started out, I too was a much more by the book sort of guy. These days, however, I'm more comfortable tinkering around with the rules and such because I understand game balance better.

I'm sure that is a large part of it. To some extent, the Moldvay "Basic" set had these guidelines, because it only dealt with levels 1-3 and a limited selection of monsters and treasure.

You find Gary talking in early Dragon articles about the need for Balance in AD&D, particularly in the monster/treasure and advancement areas. It's quite strongly stressed in fact... but I've always found that he failed to give solid guidelines, which is a pity.

Thus, 3E, with its much stronger guidelines on advancement, challenges and rewards is more strongly in the spirit of what Gary was trying to achieve with AD&D.

Of course, as Grodog notes, the extra rules can be too confining! I do believe there is a big difference between running a game for 3E (where I can be extremely free-form and lax in my rules adherence, whilst adhering to the spirit of the rules) and designing (professionally) for 3E, which requires a much greater adherence to the rules.

Incidentally, the biggest area of rules errors normally comes with NPCs and monster stats - once you get to spells and magic items, the rules are not as strict.

Cheers!

 

[diaglo]

?!!?

You say some very strange things sometimes, diaglo.

thanks.

i was always an advocate of 2 classes. warrior and magic-user.

you play your character however you want. and if you want to steal and be a thief go right ahead.

or if you want to worship the gods and pull your magic from your faith ...

or if you want to be a knight from a noble family with a huge personality for doing the right thing...

but i wasn't part of the designers of the Original game. so i adapted what i could from their ideas... much like DMs still do today.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

i was always an advocate of 2 classes. warrior and magic-user.

Kind of how I've always viewed how a game should be designed. Didn't Unearthed Arcana (3.5) have something like this? The Warrior, Adept, and Expert as classes, their "Profession" defined by what they can do??

 

[johnsemlak]

Kind of how I've always viewed how a game should be designed. Didn't Unearthed Arcana (3.5) have something like this? The Warrior, Adept, and Expert as classes, their "Profession" defined by what they can do??

Something like that.

UA offers three 'generic classes': The Warrior (not to be confused with the Warrior NPC class of the same name), the Spell User, and the Expert (also nto the same as the NPC class). Each is a bare class that is extremely customisable.

 

[Ace]

i feel it places too much emphasis on ability scores and less on the ability of the players to roleplay their character.

it added some nice things. like new spells, weapon vs armor type, and variable damage.

and also added some detrimental ones... like the thief and the paladin as classes.

How can you play D&D without the Thief as a class or at least the availability of stealthy skills

No Fahfrd and Grey Mouser, No Conan and the Tower of the Elephant, No Thieves World -- No Robin Hood -- need I say more ?

I can see not liking "thief" as a class but the skills are essential to a goodly amount of the literature