[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Raven Crowking]

Elitism doesn't benefit anyone.

I agree. But, given a choice between elitism and the lowest common denominator, I will choose elitism every time. It is my view that trying to reach the LCD automatically lowers quality whereas elitism is exclusionary but not automatically as damaging.

OTOH, if you believe that the requirement of understanding Gygaxian prose is "elitism", then we beg to differ. When I started playing, I had little difficulty in understanding what Gygax was saying...it even increased my vocabulary. The many different types of die rolls in 1e also increased my math grades (as was the case for most of the other players I knew).

The Blue Box set shows, btw, that D&D could have both flavour and clarity. It is not a one-or-the-other thing. If 4e had the strong ruleset of 3e (with some clarifications & improvements, of course) with the flavour of 1e (or the blue box), I would be pretty happy with it.

I'd still modify it, of course. It's in my nature.

RC

 

[MerricB]

I think it's important to distinguish between Gary writing descriptive passages or advice in the AD&D DMG and Gary writing rules. Gary's at his best when he's describing the game or giving advice on why dragons are bad PCs. He's at his worst when giving the rules for initiative.

Rules need to be clearly explained. (Gary manages for the most part, but ties himself into knots for initiative and XP, to name two sections).

Blue Box D&D? Do you mean the J. Eric Holmes edition of D&D Basic? I detest that version. Give me Moldvay's any day. Much clearer rules, and very inspirational.

Cheers!

 

[Raven Crowking]

If I may just note, the big difference between Wargames and RPGs is that Wargames have players controlling *many* figures, thus the complexity is kept to a reasonable level.

This can be a problem with 3e's symmetrical design for monsters/PCs. The PCs are at the right level of complexity for one person to handle, but as NPCs they can be too complex for the DM to handle. (This is, of course, a generalisation - many DMs don't really have that much trouble with the level of detail.)

Of course, a player controlling a simple piece (imagine only controlling the king in Chess) can become frustrated at the lack of variety. There's competing needs here between simplicity (so the DM can deal with it all) and complexity/variety so the player has areas to explore.

MerricB, this is actually a great point, and one of the big reasons that I believe that it isn't actually desirable to have the rules for PCs and NPCs necessarily the same. Quick NPCs ought to follow simpler rules than those for PCs.....if for no reason than to speed up statting (4e designers take note!).

RC

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I agree. But, given a choice between elitism and the lowest common denominator, I will choose elitism every time.

RC

Damn straight.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why are henchmen good and equipment bad? In neither case it's the character doing all of the work. Either way, I'll rather take up my trusty firespewing bow and go hunt me some dragons, 3E style, than start the morning with a 6:00 roll call

1. Henchmen perforce assume a social contract between PC and game world; they make the players engage the world in a way that equipment does not.

2. Henchmen offer more opportunities to define the world & create verisimiltude than a trusty firespewing bow.

3. When the Horta kills a red shirted security guard, the players heave a sigh of relief that it wasn't their character. When a rust monster destroys a piece of equipment with the exact same value as that particular red shirt, certain players cry "Gotcha monster! Unfair!"

4. You can use your henchman as a primary PC when your PC is off somewhere else and something fun is in the offing (good reason for character trees!).


RC

 

[Garnfellow]

1. Henchmen perforce assume a social contract between PC and game world; they make the players engage the world in a way that equipment does not.

2. Henchmen offer more opportunities to define the world & create verisimiltude than a trusty firespewing bow.

Even when henchmen and hirelings are generally nothing more than an anonymous collection of hp? I've been in a lot of games where the players never even bothered to give their followers serious names. I remember a troupe of linkboys named "Link," "Lank," "Lunk", "Gunk," "Munk," and (I think) "Zunk."

One could argue magic items offer just as many opportunities to define the world. "This dagger was forged by the elves of Tarathus in the First Age, to commemorate the victory over the Orcish Tyrant, Throllghad."

3. When the Horta kills a red shirted security guard, the players heave a sigh of relief that it wasn't their character. When a rust monster destroys a piece of equipment with the exact same value as that particular red shirt, certain players cry "Gotcha monster! Unfair!"

In theory, I can agree that seeing red-shirts drop *should* create a very cool, sobering in-game moment. "By Crom! That giant killed old Glew with but one blow! Let us avenge him, my comrades!" But because there is so much disparity between a 0-level commoner and a PC, seeing a hireling get taken down rarely elicits much more than a yawn from most players. (Heck, can't a housecat drop a 0-level NPC?)

Your "Gotcha monster" cry is a total straw man. I have never, never heard a 3e player utter such a whine, although I have found that players in ALL editions of D&D have far more emotionally invested in their magic items than in their followers. I remember a 1e player of a magic-user almost reduced to tears when his staff of the magi was destroyed in a cone of cold spell.

4. You can use your henchman as a primary PC when your PC is off somewhere else and something fun is in the offing (good reason for character trees!).

Yeah, I can buy that.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Why are henchmen good and equipment bad?

Neither are bad -- 1e certainly has its share of equipment!

Personally, what I find laughable are 3e's "Recommended wealth levels". I don't find it laughable to assume that higher level characters have some phat lewzt0rz... I do find it laughable when the rules tell you how much they should have at each level. See the difference?

I think that if there were "Recommended henchman levels" in 1e, you might have a point.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

IThis might be a way to make a d20 game with appeal to 1e sensibilities: less magic items and more red shirts!

Good thought. That's definitely a key aspect of it.

If you add in more red shirts, then you'd need to streamline combat and character generation to keep the game playable; I think you'd need to drop AoOs and standardise character builds.

 

[thedungeondelver]

There's no reason -- no excuse -- for D&D to cater only to the elite nerds at the top of the dorkpile. Intelligent people who love fantasy of all stripes (which includes a VERY large number of people) should be welcomed to play with open arms.

Did you spend all day building this strawman or was that just off the cuff?

Nobody here is asserting that D&D should be for "elitsts".

In the (very popular) AD&D games I run at conventions, I regularly have people show up who've never played the game before. Sometimes I have folks show up who've never played any RPG before - but they know that "AD&D" name and they're keen to give it a try. I typically reccomend they play a fighter to ease them in to the rules.

Four to eight hours later, I've got a group of folks who've thorougly enjoyed themselves - even the people who maybe didn't grok the rules for the first little bit.

I've never gotten "elitest nerd" as a feedback on any of the comment cards for my game. And I don't turn anyone away from my table. So this "elitest nerd" comment...where exactly is that supposed to be coming from again?

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

So this "elitest nerd" comment...where exactly is that supposed to be coming from again?

It's aimed at me, Bill. I said that Gygaxian prose wasn't aimed at illiterates.