Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9087356" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the context of early AD&amp;D modules - G, D, S, A, C1 and C2 - I don't think this is quite right.In the minds of the designers at that time, there seem to be two different sorts of D&amp;D play: tournament competition play; and Gygax-DMG-style campaign play. The modules exemplify the first sort of play; the rules in the rulebooks are written mostly to support the second sort of play.A comparison would be when I went to a friend's house once for a bridge party. The cards weren't randomly dealt - the host had put together curated hands that he thought would make for interesting bidding and play. This is still bridge, but it's obviously not the same as just sitting down and dealing the cards. That doesn't mean anyone's confused about how to play the game, though!What turns out to have happened, it seems, is that Gygax-DMG-style campaign play turns out not to have been the main approach to D&amp;D play. We can see this in the DL modules, the express and radical changes in tone and instructions in the 2nd ed AD&amp;D rulebooks, the emergence of the AP as the premier sort of module, etc.This is a different thing again, at least to an extent: the MM rules under the Men entry for magic items on high level bandits, pirates etc are reasonably generous, compared to the Treasure Table rules. And then there are the also-quite-generous rules in the DMG for magic items on NPC adventuring parties. That's before we even get to questions of module design.And of course magic items are one of the most fun parts of the system, so it stands to reason that if there is any deviation from the stated norms, it will be in favour of more items.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9087356, member: 42582"] In the context of early AD&D modules - G, D, S, A, C1 and C2 - I don't think this is quite right. In the minds of the designers at that time, there seem to be two different sorts of D&D play: tournament competition play; and Gygax-DMG-style campaign play. The modules exemplify the first sort of play; the rules in the rulebooks are written mostly to support the second sort of play. A comparison would be when I went to a friend's house once for a bridge party. The cards weren't randomly dealt - the host had put together curated hands that he thought would make for interesting bidding and play. This is still bridge, but it's obviously not the same as just sitting down and dealing the cards. That doesn't mean anyone's confused about how to play the game, though! What turns out to have happened, it seems, is that Gygax-DMG-style campaign play turns out not to have been the main approach to D&D play. We can see this in the DL modules, the express and radical changes in tone and instructions in the 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, the emergence of the AP as the premier sort of module, etc. This is a different thing again, at least to an extent: the MM rules under the Men entry for magic items on high level bandits, pirates etc are reasonably generous, compared to the Treasure Table rules. And then there are the also-quite-generous rules in the DMG for magic items on NPC adventuring parties. That's before we even get to questions of module design. And of course magic items are one of the most fun parts of the system, so it stands to reason that if there is any deviation from the [I]stated[/I] norms, it will be in favour of more items. [/QUOTE]

Verification