• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

BrOSR

I've seen this sort of thing presented before by individuals in the OSR of an older stripe; its hard for me to take it serious when it requires almost the entire West Coast OD&D community to have mostly or entirely missed the point to work (and as far as that goes groups as divergent from that as the MIT centered gaming groups).
Well, yeah. Jeffro's arguing that OD&D and AD&D were intended to be played as a more wargame-style campaign similar to a Braunstein, and that Gary basically just didn't spell that out in the rules clearly because he assumed his audience would all already understand that style of wargame.

Jeff opines that Tunnels & Trolls was actually the first RPG as we know them, because Ken St. Andre and virtually every other non-wargamer didn't get what OD&D actually was and was trying to do, and that this certainly includes all the West Coasters.

Of course, as I already pointed out, this theory runs afoul of the actual example of play we see in OD&D, and the lack of faction/PvP style play in the LBBs. It overlooks that Gary was in active dialogue with the early non-wargamer D&D adopters in forums like Alarums & Excursions and as far as I'm aware never wrote to them, "Oh, and after characters get a few levels under their belts they should start splitting off and playing independently and becoming rivals to one another."

And it overlooks what kind of adventures TSR actually designed, ran at tournaments and conventions for OD&D, etc. If Gary & co wanted OD&D to be (at least some of the time) a Diplomacy/Braunstein-style competitive game where the players are all plotting against each other, they certainly could have published at least one such scenario, given their own extensive experience playing Diplomacy, and their awareness of Tony Bath's Hyperborea game and of Western Gunfight. As Jeffro cites, Boot Hill actually does describe a style of play more like Braunstein and Western Gunfight.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

From the players’ and the PCs’ standpoint, any role-playing game is a group endeavor. Individual success is secondary to the success of the group, for only through group achievements can the quality of a campaign be measured. - Gary Gygax

 

The problem with this is it really only worked if you were playing the game for really long or really frequent periods. I've mentioned before that I managed to get a couple characters in the low teens over time, but there were a lot of people who never exceeded 6-8th level, and you needed to do that to get into the whole domain game.

So at best, the game had a serious split personality here; it actively discouraged getting to the levels where the more wargame elements would kick in (and was, honestly, pretty sketchy about handling those by itself).
To your point, Gary Gygax himself wrote in The Strategic Review, that even in the longest running games in either Blackmoor or Greyhawk were only in the low double digits after many years of playing:

It requires no careful study to determine that D & D is aimed at progression which is geared to the approach noted above. There are no monsters to challenge the capabilities of 30th level lords, 40th level patriarchs, and so on. Now I know of the games played at CalTech where the rules have been expanded and changed to reflect incredibly high levels, comic book characters and spells, and so on. Okay. Different strokes for different folks, but that is not D & D. While D & D is pretty flexible, that sort of thing stretches it too far, and the boys out there are playing something entirely different — perhaps their own name “Dungeons & Beavers,” tells it best. It is reasonable to calculate that if a fair player takes part in 50 to 75 games in the course of a year he should acquire sufficient experience points to make him about 9th to 11th level, assuming that he manages to survive all that play. The acquisition of successively higher levels will be proportionate to enhanced power and the number of experience points necessary to attain them, so another year of play will by no means mean a doubling of levels but rather the addition of perhaps two or three levels. Using this gauge, it should take four or five years to see 20th level. As BLACKMOOR is the only campaign with a life of five years, and GREYHAWK with a life of four is the second longest running campaign, the most able adventurers should not yet have attained 20th level except in the two named campaigns. To my certain knowledge no player in either BLACKMOOR or GREYHAWK has risen above 14th level.​
E. Gary Gygax, The Strategic Review Vol. II No. 2, April 1979 (citation from Dragon Magazine Archive CD-ROM)

I believe this is a fairly well known rant by Gary Gygax, particularly as it discusses his personal feelings towards the West Coast faction. That being what it is, it likewise makes it fairly clear that high level and faction play as is suggested by Brozer wouldn't be realistic, especially not in the way that Brozer implies in the following sections I have not yet covered.

I have found at least one letter from Gary Gygax in Alarums & Excursions which addresses competitive play among players. From my reading, it looks more like that on occasion various parties would end up in conflict, not necessarily individual players.

While the letter is wide-ranging, the following is what Gary Gygax has to say specifically about a suggestion that competitive play was the norm among his groups:

Rumors concerning the way we play D&D seem to be flying about all sorts of places, and unfortunately most of these bits of information are only partially correct at best. Dan Plerson says that we are rumored to play competitive D&D with group against group. It so happens that when we get the campaign into high gear, there is considerable competition between three or four factions, and they find it enjoyable to attack each other when the opportunity arise -- and they do play to make such opportunities. As a DM I find this quite suitable. It does not occur frequently. It almost never happens during dungeon expeditions. Here is how we have things set up:​
The game world is a parallel earth, but the continents are somewhat different. Most of our campaign activity takes place on what corresponds to North America, on the eastern half of the continent. The "Blackmoor" lands lie far up on the northeast coast. "Greyhawk" is in the central portion. There are a few other independently run campaigns located on this map. There are also some other dungeons related to the "Greyhawk" campaign located at some distance from the free city of Greyhawk. Players in our campaign may freely play in "Blackmoor", but to get there they must adventure cross country. With one or two other campaigns, we do not allow any cross-campaign play other than this, for these is too great a disparity of DMing. The territory within 500 or so miles of our main dungeon is mapped out at 5 miles to the hex. Territory within 50 miles of Greyhawk city is mapped more closely, and monster locations are indicated. The entire world is mapped out in rough form, with notes regarding typical encounters in given areas as well as particular special places, for hardy souls who wish to go forth to seek their fortunes.​

My reading of this doesn't give me the feeling that Gary (or Dave for that matter) was running Braunsteins, at least not in the manner described in Brozer or even in the reported way Wesely did. If I was going to ascribe a label to what it sounds like to me, I'd honestly say West Marches more than anything.
 

The problem with this is it really only worked if you were playing the game for really long or really frequent periods. I've mentioned before that I managed to get a couple characters in the low teens over time, but there were a lot of people who never exceeded 6-8th level, and you needed to do that to get into the whole domain game.

I don't disagree, I think the possibility of this kind of play and some mechanics to support it exist within OD&D, but they are incomplete.

My assumption (or how I'd run OD&D as a wargame) is that the player wouldn't control a single character but a domain - including several leveled PCs. So the dungeon game works to level up your domain personalities and get magic items and money to supplement your army/fortress building. The cost is both the risk of loosing powerful and domain important personalities as well as making them spend time fighting in a hole rather then managing the domain or some other thing.

This though is all theorizing and running off with hints or implications - fundamentally the same sort of thing one sees in early OSR stuff like Philotomy's Musings.
 

Gary Gygax, Alarums & Excursions #15:

Rumors concerning the way we play D&D seem to be flying about all sorts of places, and unfortunately most of these bits of information are only partially correct at best. Dan Pierson says that we are rumored to play competitive D&D with group against group. It so happens that when we get the campaign into high gear, there is considerable competition between three or four factions, and they find it enjoyable to attack each other when the opportunity arise -- and they do play to make such opportunities. As a DM I find this quite suitable. It does not occur frequently. It almost never happens during dungeon expeditions. Here is how we have things set up:
This is a really interesting quote. "When we get the campaign into high gear, there is considerable competition between three or four factions, and they find it enjoyable to attack each other when the opportunity arise -- and they do play to make such opportunities" as contrasted almost immediately against "It does not occur frequently".

How to reconcile?

Did he mean that he saw more factionalized Blackmoor-style wargame play as getting a campaign into high gear, but that in practice his own campaign didn't see a lot of that? If so, that would support the thesis that factionalized and domain-level play was always more aspirational than central.
 
Last edited:

This is a really interesting quote. "When we get the campaign into high gear, there is considerable competition between three or four factions, and they find it enjoyable to attack each other when the opportunity arise -- and they do play to make such opportunities" as contrasted almost immediately against "It does not occur frequently".

How to reconcile?

Did he mean that he saw more factionalized Blackmoor-style wargame play as getting a campaign into high gear, but that in practice his own campaign didn't see a lot of that? If so, that would support the thesis that factionalized and domain-level play was always more aspirational than central.
It does seem to provide some validation of the competitive play, shared world, and common time suggestions within the BrOSR. However, it still sounds more like a modern West Marches than Brozer. It’s also implied that this occurred as drive from the player base not necessarily the GM, which is also a major part of Brozer’s game design.

I suppose it would be interesting to read the previous letters to A&E that prompted Gary Gygax to respond. Based on what he says, it seems that someone suggested that D&D—at least the way it was being played in the Midwest—was a highly competitive affair between players.
 

Jeff's argument that people are keeping "the truth" from us out of malice also gives me some ick. It reads like a sales pitch from a conspiracy theorist. Which is, of course, very much in keeping with his previously-quoted claims about a "cabal" of undesirables working against his cultural preferences.
Well, yeah. Jeffro's arguing that OD&D and AD&D were intended to be played as a more wargame-style campaign similar to a Braunstein, and that Gary basically just didn't spell that out in the rules clearly because he assumed his audience would all already understand that style of wargame.

Jeff opines that Tunnels & Trolls was actually the first RPG as we know them, because Ken St. Andre and virtually every other non-wargamer didn't get what OD&D actually was and was trying to do, and that this certainly includes all the West Coasters.
This certainly does paint a picture of Jeffro tracing a line between Gary and Dave's gravestones looking for an inverted pyramid that holds a copy of the true original D&D document -- of which only those who have have seen it know the true meaning of role playing games. ;)

While I understand the historical documentation and process-evolution-analysis value of capturing exactly what the game looked like in each clock-tick of its primordial state (before it got released to the wider world), the game that became this amazing breakout hit was the one that got released to the wider world. Trying to tie your personal preferences to the primordial version just associates it with a less popular (admittedly in part because it generally had a total audience of 1-~2 dozen) version of the thing -- a version that was effectively abandoned for publication.
 

This certainly does paint a picture of Jeffro tracing a line between Gary and Dave's gravestones looking for an inverted pyramid that holds a copy of the true original D&D document -- of which only those who have have seen it know the true meaning of role playing games. ;)

While I understand the historical documentation and process-evolution-analysis value of capturing exactly what the game looked like in each clock-tick of its primordial state (before it got released to the wider world), the game that became this amazing breakout hit was the one that got released to the wider world. Trying to tie your personal preferences to the primordial version just associates it with a less popular (admittedly in part because it generally had a total audience of 1-~2 dozen) version of the thing -- a version that was effectively abandoned for publication.
I'm all for the historical deep dives. And if a given game form is fun, I'm not super worried about how popular it is, except insofar as I'm able to find players and fellow enthusiasts to talk about it with. I'm not begrudging people the chance to profit off publications explaining their preferred game form.

So far I am unconvinced that Jeff's found "the real D&D", that people are or were generally stupid for not understanding Braunstein-style (but continuing?) play to be "the real game", or that there are or was some malicious conspiracy to hide it. Maybe it's just meant as marketing hype, but it reads as more sincere.
 

It does seem to provide some validation of the competitive play, shared world, and common time suggestions within the BrOSR. However, it still sounds more like a modern West Marches than Brozer. It’s also implied that this occurred as drive from the player base not necessarily the GM, which is also a major part of Brozer’s game design.
Well, sort of? The "strict time records" bit in the AD&D DMG really seems to be talking about a more West Marches-style game, yeah, but without the "start and end each session in town" quasi-rule, it's important to know who's where when so as to fairly adjudicate independent actions. So that time is a meaningful cost (whether for healing, travel, spell research, or what have you) and factor facilitating meaningful decision making. Impactful choices being at the heart of interesting gameplay. Gary definitely describes how to handle a shared world for a large group of players, if you have one. But as far as the game and shared world being one centered on PvP like the Bros describe, that seems like a serious reach into unsupported territory.

I suppose it would be interesting to read the previous letters to A&E that prompted Gary Gygax to respond. Based on what he says, it seems that someone suggested that D&D—at least the way it was being played in the Midwest—was a highly competitive affair between players.
At $2 per issue in PDF form, one of these days I really need to bit the bullet and order at least the first 25 or 50 issues, which should make some really fun and interesting reading material.
 
Last edited:

I'm all for the historical deep dives. And if a given game form is fun, I'm not super worried about how popular it is, except insofar as I'm able to find players and fellow enthusiasts to talk about it with. I'm not begrudging people the chance to profit off publications explaining their preferred game form.

So far I am unconvinced that Jeff's found "the real D&D", that people are or were generally stupid for not understanding Braunstein-style (but continuing?) play to be "the real game", or that there are or was some malicious conspiracy to hide it. Maybe it's just meant as marketing hype, but it reads as more sincere.
I'm never concerned about a game's popularity. However, if he is tying his preferences to 'the real D&D,' I feal that it is innately an appeal to authority ('the game, as originally envisioned by the creators,' or similar). In that case, it seems pertinent that it wasn't the game (version) that gave the creators the authority people tend to vest them with. That's all I was trying to say.

As to the rest of your point, I agree. I see no real sign of a conspiracy (malicious or otherwise), and a much simpler explanation is that people simply disagree. I don't really believe in notions like 'the real game,' but inasmuch as we see communication of the intent of published oD&D to conform to Jeff's model, I agree that I'm not seeing anything beyond that one A&E anecdote about what Gary saw happen in his gaming group.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top