James Maliszewski's page

As for old school, they are ADnD, not 3.x, so the rules can throw you for a loop and if you use any other system you'll need to convert, but that's the only flaw I can think of.

Just to clarify briefly: Fight On! doesn't use the AD&D rules or indeed any specific rules set. For a variety of reasons both practical and philosophical it uses a light meta-system that's broadly compatible with all pre-WotC editions of D&D and their spin-offs. This is in the spirit of Judges Guild's Universal System of old.

Does make me wonder if he'd have quoted me if he realized just how much of a 4E proponent I am. I'm of the personal opinion that if one wants Gygaxian Methodology you've basically had to add that back into the game since 2nd edition. It only really existed in 1st, elements survived into 2nd but the concept was just gone by 3rd.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It's the reason why my preferred version of D&D is OD&D + supplements or, in a pinch, 1e. I simply don't find the WotC editions support the Gygaxian Methodology very well and indeed contain many elements (mostly mechanical) that militate against it.

He might have - he makes it clear that the WotC editions of the game are lacking in this area and that'd include both 3rd and 4th. I basically agree - but feel that its not by any means impossible to add the concepts back into either edition of the game.

Impossible? No, it's not. However, there are lots of mechanical/design considerations in the WotC editions (and, by extension, Pathfinder) that run counter to the Gygaxian Methodology. To put it back into those editions requires a fair amount of tweaking of the rules to accommodate it.

Perhaps it's now the time to talk about Gygaxian Mechanics as well? :)

Seriously, this is a great thread, everyone. I am deeply impressed with how a little throwaway post of mine has engendered such thoughtful discussion. Keep it up.

I think the distinction between the Gygaxian Methodology and the Gygaxian Canon is a brilliant one. Well done, Jeremy.

For myself, I see Naturalism as part of the Methodology. It's certainly the part of the Gygaxian legacy of design and play that I most favor, even if I do like many aspects of the Canon. Of course, OD&D (and cherry-picking parts of Supplements I-IV) is my game, so the Gygaxian Canonical elements in those little brown books are much fewer than in, say, AD&D, even if the Methodology is in full force.

Let me just say also that this thread has impressed the heck out of me. Lots of thoughtful discussion going on, including some extremely useful extensions of the kernel I offered up in my original post. Reminds me why I still visit the Paizo forums, even though I don't play or read Pathfinder.

I have to disagree with the latter, but only with regards to the magic system: the use of medieval-style "sympathetic magic" in making peach brandy for the Faerie Queene court, for example, is awfully far from D&D wizardry. me.

I was thinking more broadly of the way verbal, material, and somatic components were introduced into AD&D. Gygax claimed, if I recall, that he got the idea in part from the Harold Shea stories, but it's possible I'm misremembering.

As a critical exception, John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969, almost 20 years after the first publication of "Mazirian the Magician" but long before D&D) comes strongly to mind: "That morning, Prospero sat in his garden, memorizing spells..." The wizards had actual spellbooks (just like in the Player's Handbook), they had arcane-bond staves (much as the Beta describes) instead of familiars, and were adept at item crafting. Gygax listed that as another major influence on D&D wizards, BTW, and it's nice that the item crafting bonus feats in 3e carried it forward (and PF as well)

Yes, Bellairs was definitely a strong influence on the game's conception of magic, as were the Harold Shea stories of Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp.

I've read it, although I'd argue that Merritt's Dwellers in the Mirage far more closely resembles the D&D game.

I agree with you, but Gary always listed The Moon Pool as more significant whenever he talked about Merritt. I wish I knew why.

At the time, I was thinking how, when D&D became such a cultural phenomenon so quickly, that the list connected a fantasy-naive public with its literary roots and gave them inspiration for gaming, as compared to now, when fantasy is a more regular trope in tv, films, and a much larger publishing phenomenon.

I agree that the post-D&D world we live in is more broadly accepting and knowledgeable of certain fantasy tropes, because of the game's faddish popularity in the late 70s/early 80s. The problem -- for me anyway -- is that the fantasy most people are familiar with is both a caricature that bears little resemblance to D&D or, more strongly, to the pulp fantasies that inspired Gygax and form the "literary DNA" of the game.

I guess what I'm saying is that if, like me, you see D&D as something other than a "generic" fantasy RPG, the popularization of certain fantasy tropes in the wake of the game's early success is actually an impediment to bringing the game back to its roots. There are now multiple gamer "generations" for whom the true literary origins of the game mean nothing and who conceive of "D&D" as something very different than how Gygax did back in the early 70s.

Of course, the need for the reading list was greater in the original DMG than it would be in today's PfRPG

I'd argue the opposite quite strongly. In 1979, when the DMG was first published, it's quite likely that more players of D&D would have been familiar with Gygax's literary inspirations than they would be today. How many gamers nowadays have even heard of Abraham Merritt, let alone read The Moon Pool, which was a seminal influence on Gygax and the game he created?

Speaking as someone who prefers the original feel of D&D, I think a recommended reading list is even more necessary in 2008 than it was 30 years ago, because most of the books and authors whose stories shaped the beginning of this hobby are unknown to gamers today and that's a shame.

The term "Gygaxian" isn't just self-important puffery; it carries a very definite meaning, just as might "Arnesonian" or "Hargravian" or any of a dozen new adjectives I could coin to describe a particular style of design and play from the early days of the hobby. Every writer/designer has his own unique approach to D&D and Gary, due to his preeminent position within the hobby in the late 70s and early 80s, was able to elevate his approach to the point where, for a large number of gamers, it became synonymous with the game itself -- so much so that the turning away from that approach is a frustration and a disappointment.

That's not to say that the Gygaxian approach to anything was or should be normative. Nevertheless, to deny that there is such a thing as a Gygaxian approach to game/adventure design is to deny (or at least be unfamiliar with) the history of the hobby.

Speaking of which --

Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).

I'd frankly be amazed if there weren't such a list in the release version of Pathfinder. Erik is too much a student of pulp fantasy not to follow in the Dungeon Master's footsteps and include a recommended reading list. In some ways, the entire Planet Stories line is an homage to Appendix N and I'm grateful for that.

This is why we can't have nice conversations.

My credo is "live and let live" when it comes RPGs. That's not to say I don't have criticisms of, for example, 4e; obviously I do and I make no bones about them. However, I don't make a point of seeking out forums or threads where 4e fans are talking about their enjoyment of the game and make posts telling them what idiots they are for liking it, even when I think their comments about prior editions -- particularly OD&D and AD&D, my favorites -- are gravely mistaken. There's enough acrimony right now without making an effort to try and create more, which is why I generally keep to my blog or a handful of forums where I know my preferences and opinions won't be deemed fighting words.

I'm glad my thoughts were of interest and could spark some discussion, but I'm back to lurking. You know where I am if you want me :)

James, is it just me, or do you look more mature?

If "mature" is a synonym for "old," then, yes, I do look more ... mature :)

I'm wondering why it's hear and not in the 4e forum.

I'd guess it's because this is a topic primarily of interest to those who see the rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism as a failing of 4e and have therefore decided to stick with an earlier edition. The 4e forum is for gamers who are happy with the new edition and want to discuss it with other likeminded individuals. Starting a thread like this in that forum would be an incitement to riot. Neither those of us who want to discuss the topic peaceably nor those who want to discuss 4e with other fans ought to be subjected the flame war that would have inevitably resulted had it been in that forum instead of here.

I'm plugging Planet Stories, as you already know, and I've taken the plunge with a subscription, even though I'd been buying the entire series piecemeal through retail stores up till now.

I have no idea what your advertising budget is like or whether you'd deem it worthwhile, but you might consider taking out ads in some of the old school gaming periodicals that have sprung up recently. Many of their readers would be very keen on Planet Stories if they knew about the line. Most likely they don't, because Paizo isn't a company whose products they'd normally buy. It's a long shot, I'll admit. Might be worth a try nonetheless.