Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(un)reason" data-source="post: 6269357" data-attributes="member: 27780">Best of Dragon Magazine 2part 3/6What the game is; where it's going: We skip forwards 7 months, to find things are accelerating rapidly. Gary is currently very aware that sales are skyrocketing, bringing in thousands of new players every month, more than they managed in the whole of 1975. As a result, he once again has to explain things to the newbies. This means there's some overlap with the D&D relationships one, but also a load of talk about D&D's influences, and his plans for the future, including computer games, new modules, and accessories to make things more accessible. This does make me wonder if collecting all of these was the best idea, since any repetition in the topics will be exaggerated by proximity in a way that they weren't in the original magazines. You can definitely have too much of a good thing. Much about Melee: Straight away, my point is proven as Gary has to talk again about realism in D&D, this time as it pertains to minute long combat rounds, and how one attack per round is a representation of lots of actual attacks, only a few of which actually do serious damage. He also has to tell people again why there is no critical hit & fumble system in official AD&D rules, as he feels it would turn out more of a problem than a benefit to players in the long run. Characters at low levels are already pretty likely to die from a single hit anyway, and as they get to higher ones, part of the fun is becoming suitably superhuman. I remain skeptical, since the 10 or 6 second rounds of BD&D and 3/4e seem to work better, especially when it comes to monsters with several different types of attacks. I think this was a case where he was too close to the issue to be objective about the problems. Character social class: Now here's one that's still both fun, and usable whatever system you're playing with. Social classes and government may vary a fair bit from country to country, but it always involves a pyramid, with relatively few people in the ruling classes, and an increasingly broad base of poorer and less influential folks in the middle and bottom. Exactly who ends up on top, and how they did it can vary widely though, and the list of sample government types, some of which don't exist in reality, give your imagination plenty of fuel. (and an idea of how to derive more) The first article this issue I'm really happy to see. Looking back, and to the future: Back to the <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />, as they once again try to make it very clear that D&D and AD&D are completely different games, and so whatever part Dave Arneson may have had in the creation of D&D, he had no part in the creation of AD&D, so we don't have to pay him anything for it. This is also the one where Gary goes on about AD&D being intended for Official Tournament Play, so you must adhere to the Rules As Written, while you can house-rule D&D to your heart's content. A hardline stance that also seems fairly amusing in hindsight, given how often people simply ignored the more fiddly little rules like weapon speeds. This reminds me that the reason AD&D got far more modules and other supplements than D&D up to the mid 80's was due to politics, not because it sold more, with the Moldvay & Mentzer basic sets both selling more than anything else they ever did. And it makes me wonder if D&D would have sold even more if it weren't for them muddying up their own brand in the name of power struggles between the creators. I guess it's water under the bridge now, since they're both dead. But it's still not something I'm particularly amused about being reminded of again. Evil: Law vs Chaos: Having turned the 3 point alignment system into a 9 point grid, they now have to justify that by explaining the differences between lawful evil and chaotic evil, and what it means in actual play when you're going to try and kill them all regardless. So Gary picks the most extreme examples, the denizens of the lower planes. Basically, it all boils down to domination vs destruction. The Hells are one big ugly hierarchy, with tendrils of manipulation stretching down into many prime material worlds as they try to secure as many souls for themselves as possible. Meanwhile the abyss is an even bigger, just as ugly roiling mess, and the two do not get on at all. The blood war might have been formalised in 2e, but it's seeds are very much here in hindsight. This article works from the assumption of alignment languages, and that people are aware of what alignment they are, which does make it seem rather dated. (and also that like-minded people naturally attract and work with each other, which I certainly haven't found to be the case in real life) It reminds me that morality as "sides" in a great cosmic battle is specific to a pretty small amount of stories, with most having a more relativistic view of things. It's no wonder that many people found alignments a problem, since they only work with certain unstated assumptions. If you wanted your fantasy a little more down to earth, then D&D is not a good fit, and becomes increasingly less so as you level up.</blockquote>

Verification