Is it still D&D?

[Valiant]

If they used the core AD&D rules and typical setting (per PH and DMG plus Gygax reading list), then yes they would be more or less the AD&D experiance.

 

[Mallus]

If they used the core AD&D rules and typical setting (per PH and DMG plus Gygax reading list), then yes they would be more or less the AD&D experiance.

People playing the game the same way are playing the game the same way.

Hard to dispute...

 

[Desdichado]

If they used the core AD&D rules and typical setting (per PH and DMG plus Gygax reading list), then yes they would be more or less the AD&D experiance.

Well, yeah. Duh. But did they actually do that?

My experience with AD&D was that every single group I ever encountered had a page or two of houserules, and almost every single group I ever encountered used a homebrew campaign setting that varied from the "typical" setting by some amount. And at various points throughout the books, E. Gary Gygax actively encouraged exactly that paradigm.

AD&D was not some monolithic, homogenous game that you could play anywhere in the world and get the same experience, nor was it meant to be.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

AD&D was not some monolithic, homogenous game that you could play anywhere in the world and get the same experience, nor was it meant to be.

I agree that AD&D wasn't played the same way by all groups (or even most of them). However, I think the "nor was it meant to be," part is off. I think AD&D *was* originally envisioned as a unified framework (especially contrasted with D&D, in which variation was almost guaranteed). Consider the following quotes from the preface of the 1E DMG:

...if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedures from campaign to campaign within the whole. ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless.

...what is aimed at is a "universe" into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and "laws", players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know that at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu...Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the indentical meaning -- or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner...This uniformity..might...eventually lead to grand tournaments...[with participants from all over the world]...

...you must avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become something so strange as to be no longer "AD&D"...

 

[Desdichado]

I see your quotes, and I raise you these other ones (thanks for Francisca for collating them in a completely unrelated discussion on a different messageboard entirely:

"...we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" Afterword, D&D vol. III

"D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules." Timothy J. Kask, Foreward, Eldritch Wizardry

"This book holds much in store for you as a DM- it is your primary tool in constructing your own “world”, or milieu. It contains a wealth of material, and combined with the other works of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (the MONSTER MANUAL and PLAYERS HANDBOOK) gives you all the information you need to play AD&D. But, as always, one more thing is needed - your imagination. Use the written material as your foundation and inspiration, then explore the creative possibilities you have in your own mind to make your game something special."
-- Gygax in the 1e DMG forward

"IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME." --Gygax, 1e DMG afterward

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I see your quotes, and I raise you these other ones (thanks for Francisca for collating them in a completely unrelated discussion on a different messageboard entirely:

Well, your first two quotes are from OD&D, not AD&D. As I said, variation in OD&D is a given. I'm addressing AD&D, in particular. I think one of AD&D's original goals was to provide a universal, common framework (again, in contrast to the *very* free-wheeling nature of the original D&D rules). That's not to say that variation was to be crushed or that rules-lawyering was to rule the day.

A back-and-forth of dueling quotes taken out of context (or from completely different editions) is unhelpful, IMO. I suggest reading the 1E DMG preface in full, if there's any question. Gary states the whole thing quite plainly, including addressing the need (and desirability) of variation within the greater whole.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, your first two quotes are from OD&D, not AD&D. As I said, variation in OD&D is a given. I'm addressing AD&D, in particular. I think one of AD&D's original goals was to provide a universal, common framework (again, in contrast to the *very* free-wheeling nature of the original D&D rules). That's not to say that variation was to be crushed or that rules-lawyering was to rule the day.

So? The most compelling of the four quotes are the two from the 1e DMG anyway.

A back-and-forth of dueling quotes taken out of context (or from completely different editions) is unhelpful, IMO. I suggest reading the 1E DMG preface in full, if there's any question. Gary states the whole thing quite plainly, including addressing the need (and desirability) of variation within the greater whole.

I have done so, and I still believe that it's very clear that it was never the intention of AD&D to be a common experience for all groups everywhere. It was meant to be a framework to facilitate different groups doing what they wanted to do.

In any case, the real point isn't on whether or not that was how it was meant to be or how it actually was.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have done so, and I still believe that it's very clear that it was never the intention of AD&D to be a common experience for all groups everywhere.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by a common experience. If you mean "exactly the same with no variation whatsoever," then I agree, AD&D did not mean to provide that. If you mean a common framework such that a character in one game could easily be transported into another game with minimal fuss, then I think AD&D absolutely did intend to provide that.

Like I said, I think the DMG Preface speaks for itself. I think our disagreement is probably not much of an actual disagreement...more like different assumptions of exactly what we're talking about.

 

[Valiant]

Well, yeah. Duh. But did they actually do that?

My experience with AD&D was that every single group I ever encountered had a page or two of houserules, and almost every single group I ever encountered used a homebrew campaign setting that varied from the "typical" setting by some amount. And at various points throughout the books, E. Gary Gygax actively encouraged exactly that paradigm.

AD&D was not some monolithic, homogenous game that you could play anywhere in the world and get the same experience, nor was it meant to be.

Nor should it be. The object of the game was for the DM to flesh out his own details to his own make believe world. I am in 100% agreement with you. Its just supposed to be sword and sorcery technology (as far as it applies to the common man, adventurers see all kinds of wierd stuff on their travels. If you go outside those bounds too much your playing a different setting (sci-fi, modern, old west, Napolianic, or some combination of settings etc.) and at that point its hard to call it AD&D or even D&D. How far can that envelope be taken, thats hard to say. You just know it when you see it, so I guess it depends on the individual. But at some point I think we'd all agree.

As for house rules, as long as it kept most of the basics core rules true, your golden. Same is true with any game BTW. If you change the rules to RISK at what point would the average person say "what the hell are you playing" shake their head and walk off. Its a tuff call.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, then I'm completely missing your point, because it seems to me like you said that not only was it a homogenous experience, but that it should be.

And I still disagree that setting and D&D go hand in hand. D&D was always a mishmash of all kinds of pulp influences, including Tolkienian "classic" fantasy, weirdo Lovecraftian and Howardesque S&S, and yes, science fiction.