thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Plane Sailing said:
Wrong.
Is D&D 3.X intended to be played "as written"?
- Thread starter Odhanan
- Start date
Wrong.
3e was written so that it could be played as written & would have rules to cover a huge scope of activity. I don't think any other game I've played except Gurps has been so ambitious. I think they accomplished that goal to a large extent too.
It was intended, however, for groups to not play it as written, if they didn't want to. There is rule zero right up front, after all.
It doesn't seem to be intended to be very modular. Like the way Gurps had both a basic & advanced combat system.
Although, I always felt enough of the "advanced" leaked into the "basic" that you were constantly tempted to add more & more features from advanced. But they made an effort. & in the end, most groups probably managed to play something of a mix.
It was intended, however, for groups to not play it as written, if they didn't want to. There is rule zero right up front, after all.
It doesn't seem to be intended to be very modular. Like the way Gurps had both a basic & advanced combat system.
Although, I always felt enough of the "advanced" leaked into the "basic" that you were constantly tempted to add more & more features from advanced. But they made an effort. & in the end, most groups probably managed to play something of a mix.
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
billd91 said:
"Poker, chess and the AD&D system", DRAGON magazine issue 67, page 63.
People often get their panties in a wad over that article - and yet they conveniently skip the sub-title "THE OFFICIAL WORD ON WHAT'S OFFICIAL" (emphasis mine).
Never once in the article does Mr. Gygax say "Don't play this way," - rather, he says "House rules aren't official rules."
Hell he comments that even he does not use the unarmed combat rules as written and wishes he'd done them differently.
It's an article oft-misued to try and attack older versions of D&D, but I honestly never saw a huge dichotomy between Poker, chess and the AD&D system and the paragraph in the back of the DUNGEON MASTER'S GUIDE.
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
Oh, I see what PS means. He's referring to Gary Gygax's rather unfortunate and ill-advised "my way or the highway" rant in Dragon 67.
This is what Gary actually says:
"If one plays the D&D game system, it is possible that material from outside that offered by TSR to be included in the game. Such a game becomes “house rules” poker, so to speak. One then either announces the special rules, or drops them, when players from outside the core group participate in the game.
"Hoyle has even begun to standardize house rules, and this is similar to what TSR will be doing in the next few years as a special team of designers and editors work on the D&D game system — both to finish it and to make a few needed revisions.
"The AD&D game system does not allow the injection of extraneous material. That is clearly stated in the rule books." -- No it isn't. I'll quote what the rule books REALLY say below. -- "It is thus a simple matter: Either one plays the AD&D game, or one plays something else, just as one either plays poker according to Hoyle, or one plays Western) chess by tournament rules, or one does not. Since the game is the sole property of TSR and its designer, what is official and what is not has meaning if one plays the game. Serious players will only accept official material, for they play the game rather than playing at it, as do those who enjoy “house rules” poker, or who push pawns around the chess board. No power on earth can dictate that gamers not add spurious rules and material to either the D&D or AD&D game systems, but likewise no claim to playing either game can then be made.
"Such games are not D&D or AD&D games — they are something else, classifiable only under the generic “FRPG” catch-all. To be succinct, whether you play either game or not is your business, but in order to state that you play either, it is obviously necessary to play them with the official rules, as written. Thus, when you get information in these pages which bears the “official” stamp, that means it can immediately be used in game play." -- E. Gary Gygax, 1983.
Unfortunately for Gary, when you look at what the 1e DMG has to say about this, Gary's own words are:
"As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game." -- Preface to the 1e DMG, E. Gary Gygax, 1979.
"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play. Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power." -- Introduction to the 1e DMG, E. Gary Gygax, 1979.
So what are we supposed to believe, the rulebook or the Dragon article?
"Forget weapon speed factors, I must have been under the influence of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules" -- E. Gary Gygax, 2004.
Clearly, 1e is supposed to be houseruled and those who run it are supposed to use their common sense. There's one single article -- in which Gary clearly lost his temper, and he does do that from time to time -- which mistakenly claims otherwise.
This is what Gary actually says:
"If one plays the D&D game system, it is possible that material from outside that offered by TSR to be included in the game. Such a game becomes “house rules” poker, so to speak. One then either announces the special rules, or drops them, when players from outside the core group participate in the game.
"Hoyle has even begun to standardize house rules, and this is similar to what TSR will be doing in the next few years as a special team of designers and editors work on the D&D game system — both to finish it and to make a few needed revisions.
"The AD&D game system does not allow the injection of extraneous material. That is clearly stated in the rule books." -- No it isn't. I'll quote what the rule books REALLY say below. -- "It is thus a simple matter: Either one plays the AD&D game, or one plays something else, just as one either plays poker according to Hoyle, or one plays Western) chess by tournament rules, or one does not. Since the game is the sole property of TSR and its designer, what is official and what is not has meaning if one plays the game. Serious players will only accept official material, for they play the game rather than playing at it, as do those who enjoy “house rules” poker, or who push pawns around the chess board. No power on earth can dictate that gamers not add spurious rules and material to either the D&D or AD&D game systems, but likewise no claim to playing either game can then be made.
"Such games are not D&D or AD&D games — they are something else, classifiable only under the generic “FRPG” catch-all. To be succinct, whether you play either game or not is your business, but in order to state that you play either, it is obviously necessary to play them with the official rules, as written. Thus, when you get information in these pages which bears the “official” stamp, that means it can immediately be used in game play." -- E. Gary Gygax, 1983.
Unfortunately for Gary, when you look at what the 1e DMG has to say about this, Gary's own words are:
"As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game." -- Preface to the 1e DMG, E. Gary Gygax, 1979.
"The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play. Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power." -- Introduction to the 1e DMG, E. Gary Gygax, 1979.
So what are we supposed to believe, the rulebook or the Dragon article?
"Forget weapon speed factors, I must have been under the influence of a hex when I included them in the bloody rules" -- E. Gary Gygax, 2004.
Clearly, 1e is supposed to be houseruled and those who run it are supposed to use their common sense. There's one single article -- in which Gary clearly lost his temper, and he does do that from time to time -- which mistakenly claims otherwise.
Celebrim
Legend
PapersAndPaychecks said:Clearly, 1e is supposed to be houseruled and those who run it are supposed to use their common sense. There's one single article -- in which Gary clearly lost his temper, and he does do that from time to time -- which mistakenly claims otherwise.
I think if you understand the context of that rant and what triggered it, Gary is complaining principally about third party providers providing material for use in AD&D in an oblique fashion (without licensing it and skirting the edge of TSR's copyright). An example would be material from Grimtooth's traps. I always read that as EGG more or less obliquely asking players to purchase only 'official' material and only play with 'official' products, without directly referencing what exactly that unofficial material is (for whatever reasons). But since he within the article stats that he himself doesn't use all the official material as written, I never interpreted it as a claim that DM's were hidebound to the official material.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
PapersAndPaychecks said:
I think the article that I'm thinking of was in White Dwarf (in the UK), because I had all the White Dwarfs and only a selection of the Dragons.
Cheers
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
Celebrim said:
I think both of you guys are right, to be honest.
Desdichado
Hero
I'm not sure I understand the OP question. Either that or it's semantic hairsplitting that I see little value in, but I'm not sure which it is.
Of course the rules were meant to be played as written. Also, of course they don't have to be and the rules were designed to be relatively modular. All of that is clear not only from the rules themselves, but also from statements from the designers at launch. But it wasn't really until UA that "official" rules variants were introduced. And even those aren't really assumed to be in use by any subsequent products, or playtested, or much of anything else. The assumption is clearly that the game is played as written.
Of course the rules were meant to be played as written. Also, of course they don't have to be and the rules were designed to be relatively modular. All of that is clear not only from the rules themselves, but also from statements from the designers at launch. But it wasn't really until UA that "official" rules variants were introduced. And even those aren't really assumed to be in use by any subsequent products, or playtested, or much of anything else. The assumption is clearly that the game is played as written.
Similar Threads
