D&D General Matt Colville: "50 years later we're still arguing about what D&D even is!"

[Maxperson]

I just watched the video and I have to say, now I actually want to read that book. In all fairness to @Snarf Zagyg, he doesn't write posts that take 50 minutes to read. Gauntlet thrown!

 

[Emerikol]

I think everyone has got a different idea of what the ideal D&D would be and we are all right for ourselves. I mourn the playstyle and tone far more than the mechanics though there are a few types of mechanics I can't tolerate in my games.

Matt Colville is on record about what he thinks is important in D&D. What he throws out I will miss and a lot of what he thinks is important is not to me. My heart, from a game playstyle approach is probably with ACKS. Though even there I want to tweak it. DCC is another example. Those guys thought they were restoring something that was essential to D&D. The dangerous unpredictability of magic. I never saw that as an essential aspect of day to day D&D.

I am very thankful for the guy in 3e who essentially open sourced D&D. Without that, we would be far poorer today.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think everyone has got a different idea of what the ideal D&D would be and we are all right for ourselves. I mourn the playstyle and tone far more than the mechanics though there are a few types of mechanics I can't tolerate in my games.

Matt Colville is on record about what he thinks is important in D&D. What he throws out I will miss and a lot of what he thinks is important is not to me. My heart, from a game playstyle approach is probably with ACKS. Though even there I want to tweak it. DCC is another example. Those guys thought they were restoring something that was essential to D&D. The dangerous unpredictability of magic. I never saw that as an essential aspect of day to day D&D.

I am very thankful for the guy in 3e who essentially open sourced D&D. Without that, we would be far poorer today.

ACKS is the closest to my preferred style of play as well. I try to bring parts of it into other games whenever I can. The Without Number series of games are also very appealing to me.

 

[TiQuinn]

Those guys thought they were restoring something that was essential to D&D. The dangerous unpredictability of magic. I never saw that as an essential aspect of day to day D&D.

Yeah, what is up with that? That seems like something that OSR games have really glommed on to that I'm never felt was a major part of the game. Wish and Limited Wish were the two spells where there felt like there was a gotcha involved, and the game has actually kept that intact through the editions (even if Limited Wish has gone away).

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, what is up with that? That seems like something that OSR games have really glommed on to that I'm never felt was a major part of the game. Wish and Limited Wish were the two spells where there felt like there was a gotcha involved, and the game has actually kept that intact through the editions (even if Limited Wish has gone away).

I think that it might be an extension of the sometimes fun sometimes silly often memorable effects that you could get from mixing potions transplanted to a subsystem that is more likely to be seen regularly enough to generate those memorable things more often. Although it doesn't really do much for me either.

 

[Emerikol]

I think that it might be an extension of the sometimes fun sometimes silly often memorable effects that you could get from mixing potions transplanted to a subsystem that is more likely to be seen regularly enough to generate those memorable things more often. Although it doesn't really do much for me either.

I think outside of the character classes core function I am fine with some mystical in my magic. I was always introducing new spells into the game or in modern parlance maybe new "skins" in some cases. Potion drinking, even magic item trying, can be dangerous in the dungeon.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think everyone has got a different idea of what the ideal D&D would be and we are all right for ourselves. I mourn the playstyle and tone far more than the mechanics though there are a few types of mechanics I can't tolerate in my games.

DCC is another example. Those guys thought they were restoring something that was essential to D&D. The dangerous unpredictability of magic. I never saw that as an essential aspect of day to day D&D.

Yeah, what is up with that? That seems like something that OSR games have really glommed on to that I'm never felt was a major part of the game. Wish and Limited Wish were the two spells where there felt like there was a gotcha involved, and the game has actually kept that intact through the editions (even if Limited Wish has gone away).

I think that it might be an extension of the sometimes fun sometimes silly often memorable effects that you could get from mixing potions transplanted to a subsystem that is more likely to be seen regularly enough to generate those memorable things more often. Although it doesn't really do much for me either.

Ah! You all seem to be making the same mistake. That's not what Joseph Goodman was trying to do.

He wasn't trying to restore "something that was essential to D&D". His essay on Appendix N in the DCC rulebook is super explicit about this. Despite being based on a D&D framework, DCC isn't designed to emulate older D&D. It's designed to facilitate play which resembles the action in Appendix N fiction. (Another clue is that it's one of the very few OSR games which doesn't use the original six ability scores.)

He was trying to emulate the dangerous unpredictability of magic in the pulp source fiction. Something which D&D only rarely touched on, with rules like the chance for a Thief reading a scroll to cause an opposite effect (which derives from something which happened to Grey Mouser in a Leiber story, and something which happened to Cugel in a Jack Vance story).

This is something that D&D has intermittently been criticized for since its inception, making magic into something of a perfectly reliable (aside from saving throws) and predictable science, and thus removing mystery.

OSR games which add unpredictability (roll to cast, miscast charts, etc.) are all harkening back to fiction outside D&D.

I am very thankful for the guy in 3e who essentially open sourced D&D. Without that, we would be far poorer today.

Ryan Dancey is usually the one credited for it, as he was the big advocate for Open Gaming. And yeah.

 

[Emerikol]

Ah! You all seem to be making the same mistake. That's not what Joseph Goodman was trying to do.

He wasn't trying to restore "something that was essential to D&D". His essay on Appendix N in the DCC rulebook is super explicit about this.

He was trying to emulate the dangerous unpredictability of magic in the pulp source fiction. Something which D&D only rarely touched on, with rules like the chance for a Thief reading a scroll to cause an opposite effect (which derives from something which happened to Grey Mouser in a Leiber story, and something which happened to Cugel in a Jack Vance story).

This is something that D&D has intermittently been criticized for since its inception, making magic into something of a perfectly reliable (aside from saving throws) and predictable science.

OSR games which add unpredictability (roll to cast, miscast charts, etc.) are all harkening back to fiction outside D&D.

Good insight and I agree there is source material for that sort of thing. I'd even argue Conan is that way. I'm not anti-DCC as I have bought nearly all of their old school modules written before the DCC game. I just don't care for the unpredictability that runs to the core of DCC's approach to magic. I can see for sure why some like it.

Ryan Dancey is usually the one credited for it, as he was the big advocate for Open Gaming. And yeah.

Yep that is him. The savior of modern gaming if you ask me. I'll buy him a coffee if I ever meet him.

 

[TiQuinn]

Ah! You all seem to be making the same mistake. That's not what Joseph Goodman was trying to do.

He wasn't trying to restore "something that was essential to D&D". His essay on Appendix N in the DCC rulebook is super explicit about this.

He was trying to emulate the dangerous unpredictability of magic in the pulp source fiction. Something which D&D only rarely touched on, with rules like the chance for a Thief reading a scroll to cause an opposite effect (which derives from something which happened to Grey Mouser in a Leiber story, and something which happened to Cugel in a Jack Vance story).

This is something that D&D has intermittently been criticized for since its inception, making magic into something of a perfectly reliable (aside from saving throws) and predictable science.

OSR games which add unpredictability (roll to cast, miscast charts, etc.) are all harkening back to fiction outside D&D.

DCC may want that but why do they ALL seem to want this? Are they all that concerned with the pulp fiction, because that particular connection has never been what drove me to D&D in any of its editions.

 

[Emerikol]

DCC may want that but why do they ALL seem to want this? Are they all that concerned with the pulp fiction, because that particular connection has never been what drove me to D&D in any of its editions.

What other games are that way? All the real clones are D&D straight down the line. C&C is definitely not that way. I'm not saying there are no games other than DCC as I am not all knowing about all games. There are a lot that are not that way though.