Quasqueton
First Post
What exactly does this mean? diaglo? "The party is over"?
Sort of sounds like he is saying OD&D was easy and/or the Players had it easy vs. the DM, and AD&D changed this.
Quasqueton
Back in the day...
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Sort of sounds like he is saying OD&D was easy and/or the Players had it easy vs. the DM, and AD&D changed this.
Quasqueton
Desdichado
Hero
No there isn't. And anyway, Mutants and Masterminds, which I forgot to mention, is level-less d20. Add the Grim N Gritty add on, and nobody's brazen.troy812 said:
Besides, as buzz mentions, "back in the day" most systems played a lot more like D&D then not.
Not been my experience. Maybe we level up a lot slower than you do, though?troy812 said:
Quasqueton said:
One thing to remember about oD&D is exactly how few the rules were, and how little the emphasis on Game Balance. 3E is one of the most amazingly balanced games I've seen with regard to the guidelines I see given on monster difficulty, treasure awarded and PC abilities. Of course, there are some that feel that has gone too far...
The gap between the original three-booklet edition of oD&D and AD&D is as great as the gap between 2E and 3E. The game changed massively over the four years. Gary had released oD&D before it was ready, really, as he mentions in a few articles at this time, urged on by his friends who loved the game.
Through the supplements, oD&D evolved to something very close to AD&D, though AD&D was a big step forward in putting it all together.
Many of you would know the Riftwar series by Ray Feist (Magician, etc.) That came out of a oD&D game run by Steve Abrams. Interestingly, the game was set 500 years after Magician!
However, when I say "oD&D game", that's not strictly accurate. Here's what Feist has to say about the system they used: "In 1975 or so, I fell into a game with some friends at an apartment off campus (UCSD). It was called "D&D" but it wasn't. By the time I came aboard, they'd already tossed most of the original rules as being "dumb" and replaced them with "house rules" which we got on xeroxed sheets. If you're old enough to remember the original white box of D&D, you'll understand how incomprehensible most of the rules were. Anyway, Midkemia was original a bunch of unrelated dungeons, but by the time I came aboard, they had started running overlands from dungeon to dungeon."
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.
Cheers!
More Interview
Further to what I was just saying, here's one additional excerpt.
Q. One of the raps against D&D was that it was too flexible, and one of the great difficulties, particularly in going to conventions or tournaments and such, was: anyone could say, “I’m having a D&D game, and a person from one side of the country would go, he’d sit down at the table, and within ten minutes, he knew he was in trouble, because he didn’t recognize it as any kind of D&D he had ever played. How flexible, or how inflexible, is AD&D in this regard, compared to D&D? Can a player from California go and find a group in New York and at least have some reasonable assurance that he or she is at least going to understand the guidelines and the framework? Or are you going to encourage the massive variants and do-it-yourself additions that D&D was noted for?
Gary: D&D was noted for massive additions and variants that we encouraged, to some extent, without fully realizing the inventiveness of those people who were going to get it, and because it was done over a short period of time, and we didn’t realize how unfamiliar many of the players who would begin D&D were with miniatures and boardgames. And so . . . we encouraged a monster . . .and we are like Frankenstein and D&D is our monster. It’s grown and we want to throw it into the lime pit now and let it. . . . No, in reality, it’s a monster that brings so many people so much fun and enjoyment, even though, as you say, and is also true, that each group plays much differently than the other. We want to still keep D&D going as long as anybody is interested in it, because it is fun, and although you get wild variants, if you’re enjoying the game. . . .after all, that’s what it’s there for. AD&D is designed specifically to answer this lack in D&D in that the players will not be so able to bend the rules nor will the DM be able to bend the rules. There are strong admonitions against tinkering with the integral systems, and what we are trying to do is establish a game that will be recognized from coast to coast, from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, or beyond if they read English and play AD&D. This will give fellowship to all the AD&D players, and also enable us to do something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time, that it to establish an international tournament for AD&D, which will allow players from all over the country and maybe even the U.K. and Australia and everyplace else it’s played to get together and compete in a recognizable game where they’re on relatively equal footing for—someday—substantial prizes, perhaps.
Further to what I was just saying, here's one additional excerpt.
Q. One of the raps against D&D was that it was too flexible, and one of the great difficulties, particularly in going to conventions or tournaments and such, was: anyone could say, “I’m having a D&D game, and a person from one side of the country would go, he’d sit down at the table, and within ten minutes, he knew he was in trouble, because he didn’t recognize it as any kind of D&D he had ever played. How flexible, or how inflexible, is AD&D in this regard, compared to D&D? Can a player from California go and find a group in New York and at least have some reasonable assurance that he or she is at least going to understand the guidelines and the framework? Or are you going to encourage the massive variants and do-it-yourself additions that D&D was noted for?
Gary: D&D was noted for massive additions and variants that we encouraged, to some extent, without fully realizing the inventiveness of those people who were going to get it, and because it was done over a short period of time, and we didn’t realize how unfamiliar many of the players who would begin D&D were with miniatures and boardgames. And so . . . we encouraged a monster . . .and we are like Frankenstein and D&D is our monster. It’s grown and we want to throw it into the lime pit now and let it. . . . No, in reality, it’s a monster that brings so many people so much fun and enjoyment, even though, as you say, and is also true, that each group plays much differently than the other. We want to still keep D&D going as long as anybody is interested in it, because it is fun, and although you get wild variants, if you’re enjoying the game. . . .after all, that’s what it’s there for. AD&D is designed specifically to answer this lack in D&D in that the players will not be so able to bend the rules nor will the DM be able to bend the rules. There are strong admonitions against tinkering with the integral systems, and what we are trying to do is establish a game that will be recognized from coast to coast, from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, or beyond if they read English and play AD&D. This will give fellowship to all the AD&D players, and also enable us to do something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time, that it to establish an international tournament for AD&D, which will allow players from all over the country and maybe even the U.K. and Australia and everyplace else it’s played to get together and compete in a recognizable game where they’re on relatively equal footing for—someday—substantial prizes, perhaps.
Those interested in further researching the origins of Midkemia might want to visit this site: http://www.psihawk.com/feist/feist-faq.html
The flirtation with AD&D as a tournament game can be clearly seen in the early modules: the Giants, Drow, Ghost Tower and Slavers were all part of that early competitive atmosphere.
However, it quickly became apparent that different groups will achieve different results based on who their DM was for the session! The game is too wild for a level playing field. That doesn't mean that the organisers of these tournaments didn't try...
Indeed, there's an early Dragon article which explains that all of the monsters in a particular tournament module were unintelligent to limit the options of the DMs!
Ultimately, I don't think D&D is suited for this sort of competitive play... though it's limited form (D&D Miniatures) probably is - but then you lose the role-playing element.
Cheers!
The flirtation with AD&D as a tournament game can be clearly seen in the early modules: the Giants, Drow, Ghost Tower and Slavers were all part of that early competitive atmosphere.
However, it quickly became apparent that different groups will achieve different results based on who their DM was for the session! The game is too wild for a level playing field. That doesn't mean that the organisers of these tournaments didn't try...
Indeed, there's an early Dragon article which explains that all of the monsters in a particular tournament module were unintelligent to limit the options of the DMs!
Ultimately, I don't think D&D is suited for this sort of competitive play... though it's limited form (D&D Miniatures) probably is - but then you lose the role-playing element.
Cheers!
myrdden
First Post
Umbran said:
I think you've hit the nail on the head with that statement. If a player is playing in opposition to the GM (as opposed to with the GM) then right off the bat there will be conflict. The player will inevitably be double-checking or second-guessing the GM's decisions to ensure they (the player) is not getting screwed over. I don't quite get this view point.
Also when I play, (which is very infrequent now - stupid grown up life) I play with friends whom I know and associate with outside of gaming. There is an implicit amount of trust that the game will be handled fairly, and barring that, at least entertainingly. Any rule questions are legitimate attempts to remember what a rule says, not to screw over the GM or the player. If the decision is wrong - we move on, big deal. If a character dies becuase of it, we either create a new character or change the outcome from death to severe wounding or unconciousness (or something like that). There's no conflict between GM or player, no accusations of "the fix" or anything like that. We play to have fun and because we enjoy each other's company. If you can't trust your group to have fun, then why bother playing with them?
I'm pretty sure I had another point to make here, but I was distracted and now can't remember it...
I absolutely agree. Maybe that was the other point I was trying to make.
Oh yeah...great post Merric. Please tell me you didn't type it all out yourself?
myrdden
First Post
MerricB said:Thankfully, no. The Dragon Magazine Archive and Adobe Acrobat are your friends.
I'm glad that you (and Piratecat, and others) like this thread. I'm fascinated by the early days of D&D.
Cheers!
It is interesting to read.
Similar Threads
