D&D General On Powerful Classes, 1e, and why the Original Gygaxian Gatekeeping Failed

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah it didn't even mention the 'in order' bit just using 3d6. I came to AD&D via BECMI so used 3d6 in order, then cheat like hell to get a decent character

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but in OD&D, you did roll in order. It's right up there a few posts above

 

[S'mon]

Doesn't Adventure League let you play level 1 to 5 in the same group? I think there's a sort of 'tier' system in AL that pretty much works like that.

1-4. 5 is the start of Tier 2 (5-10).

 

[Undrave]

1-4. 5 is the start of Tier 2 (5-10).

I think using AL as a reference point would be a good idea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hind sight is 20/20. We had only 1 game from Arneson to digest the system. then his notes, typed, and then we went gonzo on it, with it in the playtests. The rules, 10 pages to start, grew in the backwash of the playtests, page by page. Normally rules are fashioned up front and then playtested, but not in this case as we had to re-emulate what Arneson and his group had attained in over 1 year of playing BM; and Gary decided on a more "progression" styled advance for Characters. This defined the system in all ways thereafter, warts and all. It is obviously styled on the old systems of linear progression and it works. Is it realistic? Well, no. It's an abstraction of what we say is Fantasy because Fantasy has no concrete data and history like simulation games do. That Gary carried it forth to AD&D is impressive; and he admitted that the rules (OD&D) were likely unfinished but that the concept had to get out there, he felt, in order to finish them. This concept had never before existed in systems/published games. That is the biggest context and to dismiss its generative days as flawed is quite preposterous. Kinda like saying that, by today's standards. that the Model-T Ford was flawed compared to a Mustang.

Well, it would be silly to call it 'flawed' in any case, lol. It was/is a game and the only flaw it could possibly have would be "this is not fun." Nobody has ever accused D&D of that (well, maybe they have, but you cannot please everyone). It was really a pretty mind-bending concept. Even at age 11 I was a wargamer. I 'got' games, but when I just HEARD THE IDEA of D&D it was like learning that you are really a Martian, nothing I ever assumed about games in my young life could really be applied anymore. It might not have been TOTALLY revolutionary to a guy like Dave, who was versed in Braunsteins and such, but it sure was eye-opening to the rest of us, probably to Gary too the first time he heard about it. And the thing is, conceptually it seems like such a simple idea too, but it isn't really.

While I think Gary was more of a "document what I did" vs "come up with a set of principles and devise rules around it" sort of game designer, he did have some unique insights of his own. The whole thing about the progression was utterly critical. I've said many times this was the single key reason for the success of D&D over the years. It sucks you in, it invites you to keep trying to attain further levels. Every computer game designer ever knows this paradigm. You can make a good RPG without it, but not one single one of those games has ever been 1/10th as popular as D&D. It takes a lot of savvy to hit on that fundamental mechanic and GET IT EXACTLY RIGHT the first time around. I mean, people can argue about XP charts or whatever, but the basic power curve of 5e is pretty darn similar to OD&D, that says something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, it's just the first alternative listed (the default is 3d6 in order). But in fairness, it's the first one listed and by far the easiest so it makes sense that it became the de facto method of rolling.

Method II was to roll 3d6 12 times and keep the 6 best scores.
Method III was ... oh boy .... roll 3d6 in order for each ability, except you got to roll 6 times and keep the highest score.
Method IV was to to roll up 12 characters by rolling 3d6 in order, and keep the best character.

It is pretty ambiguous, as with most of AD&D... 'Roll 3d6 in order' is NEVER spelled out as a rule or procedure, nor even described. ALL of the 'METHODS' of the DMG are stated to be 'alternatives', but it is never stated what they are alternatives TO. The way it is phrased makes us understand in hindsight that it was that unspoken standard method, but it could as well be alternatives to each other, unless you already played OD&D/Basic and knew different. Someone brand new to D&D picking up the books would never know 'Roll 3d6 in order' ever existed as a rule, or was being compared with, just that there was some sort of 'rolling d6s' technique that wasn't so good. Even figuring that out would require careful reading.

 

[RealAlHazred]

I played a lot of AD&D back in the day. A lot. I think I was involved (as either player or DM) in almost 20 AD&D campaigns in college. And at every one of those, there was a homebrew method to shift characteristic points around. At one of the games I ran, I told players ahead of time I was going to run by the book, and forced all players to roll at the table using one of the methods, and just one character. And we had a table of fighters and (I think) one thief. The highest roll we had was one 16, in Charisma, but that character had a 6 Strength. So I relented, and eventually got the variety people wanted out of the game.

 

[Voadam]

It is pretty ambiguous, as with most of AD&D... 'Roll 3d6 in order' is NEVER spelled out as a rule or procedure, nor even described. ALL of the 'METHODS' of the DMG are stated to be 'alternatives', but it is never stated what they are alternatives TO. The way it is phrased makes us understand in hindsight that it was that unspoken standard method, but it could as well be alternatives to each other, unless you already played OD&D/Basic and knew different. Someone brand new to D&D picking up the books would never know 'Roll 3d6 in order' ever existed as a rule, or was being compared with, just that there was some sort of 'rolling d6s' technique that wasn't so good. Even figuring that out would require careful reading.

The gnostic lore of AD&D.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Well, it would be silly to call it 'flawed' in any case, lol. It was/is a game and the only flaw it could possibly have would be "this is not fun." Nobody has ever accused D&D of that (well, maybe they have, but you cannot please everyone). It was really a pretty mind-bending concept. Even at age 11 I was a wargamer. I 'got' games, but when I just HEARD THE IDEA of D&D it was like learning that you are really a Martian, nothing I ever assumed about games in my young life could really be applied anymore. It might not have been TOTALLY revolutionary to a guy like Dave, who was versed in Braunsteins and such, but it sure was eye-opening to the rest of us, probably to Gary too the first time he heard about it. And the thing is, conceptually it seems like such a simple idea too, but it isn't really.

While I think Gary was more of a "document what I did" vs "come up with a set of principles and devise rules around it" sort of game designer, he did have some unique insights of his own. The whole thing about the progression was utterly critical. I've said many times this was the single key reason for the success of D&D over the years. It sucks you in, it invites you to keep trying to attain further levels. Every computer game designer ever knows this paradigm. You can make a good RPG without it, but not one single one of those games has ever been 1/10th as popular as D&D. It takes a lot of savvy to hit on that fundamental mechanic and GET IT EXACTLY RIGHT the first time around. I mean, people can argue about XP charts or whatever, but the basic power curve of 5e is pretty darn similar to OD&D, that says something.

The first time we (Gary, myself, Terry Kuntz and Ernie Gygax) heard about Dave's new concept has been detailed from start to finish in my relatively new publication, "The Game that Changed Everything" Sage's Tower (RPG History)

About the progression approach. It works. It also works to have you grow into a hero (or fail in the process). Once you retire with the golden watch you know you've earned it (if earned fairly, and there were those DMs that gave away the store's goods, so to speak, but their progeny (their PCs) were easy to spot due to their reckless play, etc.). Plus you are left with grand stories of then and now, no doubt as Conan would have repeated from his throne in Aquilonia, perhaps about those far removed days of him being a slave.

In all there's much to be grateful and happy for. Just like a car we drove it, as did thousands. Even though it's received many makeovers the object of just driving it still remains.

 

[guachi]

A while ago I asked Frank Mentzer if he could go back and change one thing about BECMI, he said, "Going to level 36. It was too high. 20 level cap was more than enough."

Never purchased the Masters Set for this reason. Though I did crib the weapon mastery tables from the books of my best friend's parents.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but in OD&D, you did roll in order. It's right up there a few posts above

Nah in AD&D DMG Gygax talks about how 3d6 gives poor results, doesn't mention in order. Nothing is mentioned about how to roll at all in PHB.