|
...Gygaxian naturalism is a particular style of adding verisimilitude. My surmise based on what we've been given up to this point is that it comprises certain mechanical elements that foster a sense of verisimilitude. Some people think there is a canon or body of work that particularly instantiates this style of verisimilitude. Does that help?
See, M, that's why we're friends. Spot on, my friend.
When time permits, I'll be returning here to write much more. I am in kind of a research-development cycle right now where I am traveling back to the roots of our game. I am reviewing First Edition and my stack of 50+ modules. I am studying the game, the way the game's inventor played it, and believed it was meant to be played.
I am an open minded individual, but also a fan of forgotten and forbidden lore. There are secrets in Gygax's works that continue to deliver the best gaming experience possible at my game table. I have intuited Gygaxian style for the past 30 years. Now, with added research, hopefully I will be able to gather the necessary verbiage needed to express and share this again with the world.
I began this thread with Malisewski's commentary on Naturalism. James later discusses Unnaturalism, recognizing that Gygax was not a Darwin so much as a Darwin-Jungian-Leekyian-Vancian and to a minor extent, Tolkienian. That is - Gary lists for us in the 1e DMG his list of influences. This is like a Rosetta Stone for what formulated in his mind the elements that particularly mark and instantiates the style I would call gygaxian.
More to come but I wanted to jump in and say 1) M - you are spot on and 2) Court Fool, you surprise me with your dedication to discuss and stay focused in this thread. Please keep up your openness in earnest and this will continue to be of value. Thanks.
Thanks everyone for continuing this dialogue. There is much yet to discuss and discern. With time, and continued participation, and patience, we will "unearth" this arcane knowledge. Pun intended.
|
|
...Or are you suggesting that GN is a specific level of verisimilitude? In which case, the title is slightly misleading and should be along the lines of "4e moves too far away from GN".
Yes, actually. Again, I am impressed with you Court Fool. Although flippant elsewhere, you are now fully engaged in this dialogue. Thank you.There is an important leveling here where too much and too little of this verisimilitude busts away from what is gygaxian.
And, I also acknowledge your question about the thread's title. The title is actually a play off the historical and academic phrase, "John Locke's Rejection of Mercantilism." There is an obvious degree of rejection of the traditions and 30+ year history of our game. And 4e demonstrates a rejection of gygaxian naturalism. Though, for obvious continuity reasons, the designers also revealed they have "re-concepted" many ideas. Because there are some continued elements but many feel 4e "crossed the line" as Veector points out, the resultant edition is a bit of a "mash up." So, yes. 4e moves too far away from GN is a true statement as well. And, if I were characterizing this move, it is also true to say that on the whole this formulates a rejection where as Veectors "line" had been crossed, with implication that it is a majority rejection. In common terms - there's still some elements in the mash up that were brought forward, and as such the edition is not an absolute rejection, but a rejection nonetheless.
Wow. It's for my brain? And here I thought it was for my charm. (Sigh.)
See, Pax, I told you that CourtFool wasn't just curly white hair all the way down... ;)
Pax, I hope your research isn't beginning with the assumption that the way Gary Gygax constructed the game is the way it should be.
For myself, as far removed as I feel that 4th edition is from the style I want to play, I can also understand some comments that people have saying that it's closer to the game's roots by virtue of some of its more limiting mechanics.
If it weren't for Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, we wouldn't have D&D. But I think D&D is bigger than who they are.
Pax, I hope your research isn't beginning with the assumption that the way Gary Gygax constructed the game is the way it should be.
IMO, Gygaxian Naturalism isn't so much about how the game is constructed (mechanics-wise), but how those mechanics are used. 4e may be closer in some mechanical aspects to OD&D, 1st Ed AD&D, and BECMI D&D than 3.x; however, the disjointed (and frankly contradictory for some particular pieces) way many of the mechanics are presented make the presentation of a "living, breathing campaign world" a lot harder than what Arneson and Gygax came up with.
For the most part, there was an internal logic and structure to the ways the mechanics worked with the rest of the system in earlier editions, probably resulting from the game being designed "organically" from central premises. 3.x was a huge change, mechanically, from 2nd Ed AD&D, but it was a complete redesign along the same lines as the central premises. 4e, in comparison, is mechanically closer to 3.x (and, mechanically, a very well-designed system) than 3.x is to 2nd Ed AD&D, but the central premises are radically different or seem to be lacking altogether, which is why many feel that different parts don't mesh well together or with a coherent setting.
|
|
... the way Gary Gygax constructed the game ...
There are secrets in these shadows Veector. ... not as much in the way Gary constructed the game, so much as the way it was played. To Dragonchess Player's point - there is more to gygaxian than the ruleset, and to your point, yes - the power of the game is much larger than any one of us.
|
Here's my counterpoint. The rules Gygax wrote were more played than any edition since. 2e < 1e, 3x < 2e, number of players-wise.. 3x and 4e debatable in relation to each other.
Now, was this due to AD&D being a huge fad in the 80's? Probably. Did the drop off have anything to do with the shift away from Gygax's vision starting with 2e? Debatable, but possible.
However, what isn't debatable, since demographics back it up, there are less players now than there were the day Gygax was run out of TSR. And the numbers have been steadily dwindling since the mid-eighties.
So, it the quantity of "better" can be judged by actual game play, 1e > than any other edition. The quality of better is far more subjective, and up to individual taste. Some of us still think 1e > than any edition since, as it is what we consider the essence of what D&D is, and everything since has drifted away from this essence.
4e is only "similar" to earlier editions (and I'd say it was closer to Basic than AD&D) in that it is more accessible to new players. Mechanically, it has little to do with AD&D (or OD&D, for that matter) other than it also utilized "exception-based" design vis a vis PCs and monsters, rather than the unified mechanic of 3x.
As an old-time gamer amongst a group of old time gamers, we were really pleased with 3.x. For years we'd been making up rules for everything under the sun to supplement 1e and allow us to play the kinds of game we wanted to play, and 3.x really was an improvement for us, taking us further down that path and frankly making our lives easier. So I guess one point to consider is that, 3.x may have been played less than 1e, but some of the 1e playing has to be taken as counting towards 3.x. There is a continuity that 3.x benefits from, that arguable 4e does not. (At least, you can take this as one group of 1e-nards who give 3.x there enthusiastic seal of approval for old school gaming. I may have to right another post defending what old school that is, but I'll wait and see.)
Our style of play was only pushed towards the kind of play that people complain about and associate with the weaknesses of 3.x only when they were new players--so I put this down more to newbies learning how to role-play rather than to 1e fostering one kind of play that 3.x somehow discouraged (What I take to be the Matthew Finch interpretation.) So I don't need any step away from what I perceive to be the baseline advances of 3.x either backwards to 1e or forwards to 4e, unless it is for the case of teaching novice role-players both mechanics and role-playing at the same time. A form of the game along the lines of Basic would be great for that, but one that would prepare them for advanced play in 3.x/Pf not take them in a totally different direction. So 4e (big surprise, everyone gasp) is not useful to me in that regard.
I am curious what you guys thought of Justin Alexander's Disassociated Mechanics critique? In my case, I've only read through parts of 4e and listen to others who have played, but his points seemed to ring true to me.
Smites Derarch of Houstonian Rejectionism!
Smites Derarch of Houstonian Rejectionism!
|
|
Oh, lordy, now I have the Inquisition on my butt...
Don't worry. After they're done smiting you, they'll fall to smiting each other. I should never have allowed them together in the same thread.
I am curious what you guys thought of Justin Alexander's Disassociated Mechanics critique? In my case, I've only read through parts of 4e and listen to others who have played, but his points seemed to ring true to me.
It was interesting, but it seemed like the conclusion was "I like disassociated mechanics, but not in 4e D&D". Uh, O.K...
My play experiences with D&D have been vastly different than others on this board. I believe this has contributed a lot to my confusion.
I can not help but wonder if part of the reason there were fewer players of later editions was due to the existence of other games. I do not think this could be easily dispelled away with inconsistencies around 3e due to the shear size of the marketing campaign.
Maybe you were playing with that group I was complaining about? :)
In response to houstonderek's pondering: "Why are there fewer D&D players now than there were during 1e?"
Dude... people grew up. None of the guys I gamed with in high school still play. I'm probably the only one who's main hobby is still D&D/gaming. D&D to them was a game. To us, it's a lifestyle.
In response to houstonderek's pondering: "Why are there fewer D&D players now than there were during 1e?"
Dude... people grew up. None of the guys I gamed with in high school still play. I'm probably the only one who's main hobby is still D&D/gaming. D&D to them was a game. To us, it's a lifestyle.
And younger folks who would've played D&D 20 years ago are now playing World of Warcraft or other D&D-like video games.
And younger folks who would've played D&D 20 years ago are now playing World of Warcraft or other D&D-like video games.In response to houstonderek's pondering: "Why are there fewer D&D players now than there were during 1e?"
Dude... people grew up. None of the guys I gamed with in high school still play. I'm probably the only one who's main hobby is still D&D/gaming. D&D to them was a game. To us, it's a lifestyle.
Let's also not forget that each time a new edition comes out, a certain portion of the population that had played the previous edition decides not to switch.
I guess I'm going to have to reread J. Alexander's articles, because what I got out of them was "I hate disassociated mechanics, here's why, 4e's full of them, no wonder I don't like it."
I guess I'm going to have to reread J. Alexander's articles, because what I got out of them was "I hate disassociated mechanics, here's why, 4e's full of them, no wonder I don't like it."
Note the part where he says:
"However, dissociated mechanics can also be quite useful for roleplaying games. It's all a question of what you do with them. Specifically, dissociated mechanics can be useful if the reason they're dissociated from the game world is because they're modeling the narrative."
He uses the game "Wushu" as an example, but it wasn't clear to me why 4E D&D's dissociated mechanics aren't "modeling the narrative". In fact, I think some of them do (e.g. a flashy move you can use once per "episode") and some of them don't (e.g. "marking", which seems like a game mechanic with little or no basis in story-telling).
|
|
There is a good post on Grognardia about "Too many monsters."
Now, James Malsewski is not trying to be contraversial, nor does he say he does not support or like various options and monster guides. But for those who are either grognards/old-schoolers, or simply long-time fans or players of the game - - you might remember how it went generally "unspoken" that while there were many guides that could be used, a "Good GM" would use great care and discretion in the selection of monsters that would believably populate their world. Additionally, and usually, some viable explanation would be given to support the existance of creatures within the game's mileau.
It simply went "un-said" back in those days, and for the past few decades, that while we often enjoyed seeing new ideas in print that we "could" use, that it was generally unlikely that their quality, caliber, or integrity would match up to the game's inherent setting.
In fact, just using the monsters in the original 1e MMI, for example, plus some from the MMII, and careful selection from the FF, were all one really needed for a life-time's worth of gaming. In fact, in the very best games, it went without saying that the GM was likely to set up the "usual" gygaxian mileau. That meant, orcs, goblins, trolls, dragons, some gnolls, and an occasional abberation or two, etc. (list not all inclusive)
There really wasn't the kind of video-game-esque indifference to the amount and kind of opponent faced. In fact, we carefully selected only the most integral beasts based on the location, setting, world story, etc.
There wasn't a lot of randomly dropping whilly-nilly any old CR beast into rooms, as several modules would have you believe. In fact, some of the integrity of the actual game mileau itself was bungled by its very owners and marketeers. They did this knowingly to boost sales. And even the games co-creator got carried away.
Yes, I know what you might be thinking.... if Gary got carried away, how can it be that Pax somehow knows what is Gygaxian and not.
Well - there is a lot of room in a fantasy game for variation - it is the spice of life. And, everyone can be respected for their right to imagine what they will without judgment. As for what is gygaxian - this can be determined by his writing itself. Check out the early books, check out his INSIDIAE, or other Gygaxian Fantasy Realms series. The 1e DMG is perhaps the best rpg book ever written - and should be a "must-read" for all new would-be GMs for any edition.
When James M coined "Gygaxian Naturalism" he was referring to these things... a distinction that to create a unique mileau, one had to be both selective and consistant, as for the most part e.g.g. was. Because, unlike 4e where "Anything Goes", a gygaxian mileau demonstrates that if everyone is special than nobody is special. This translated, for us back then - and now, to a campaign setting where the GM would determine where the monsters lived, and reasoned away the existance of most of the possible creatures - leaving in its place only the ones that would be there, should be there, could be there.
The GM reasoned away trying to make everyone equal - and instead, celebrated the diversity of classes, and the inability of anyone PC to do everything that the next guy or gal did. In the same way we used our imaginations to celebrate diversity of ourselves as gamers. We cherished that we were a bit different from other folks. And deeply appreciated a special game, of high quality selections, rather than infinate options - because of the intelligent design that went along with high calliber games, where GM's made good gygaxian-style choices about the natural environment, including the presence of carefully selected monsters from limited lists best representing the mileau at-hand.
There is a good post on Grognardia about "Too many monsters."
I think the real problem with the number of monsters is that (a) "90% of everything is crap" and (b) adding new races to an existing game is awkward. It has little to do with the relative quality of various monster books.
Do the Pathfinder modules also break this axiom?
|
|
Its possible that Hogarth's axiom of '90% of everthing is crap', may be the "unspoken" rule of thumb I spoke of earlier. Good discretion on the part of the GM is paramount to a mileau with good verisimilitude. Yet, I love the fantastic, imaginative, and amazine. So, we need not be stifled or limited in our imaginations.... PAIZO actually seems to break Hogarth's axiom in the sense that most of their materials right now equal the 10% of good stuff being made in the industry.
I was very impressed with Jacobs' handling of Classic Monsters Revisitied. I am also an astute follower of the way Pathfinder has leaned on the Tome or Horrors collections from Necromancer games in the way it has "stocked" its Golarion mileau. So, you make a good point, Court Fool — PAIZO might actualy be such good quality that they defy Hogarth's axiom.
Its possible that Hogarth's axiom of '90% of everthing is crap', may be the "unspoken" rule of thumb I spoke of earlier.
[picky nerd voice] Actually that axiom is known as Sturgeon's Law [/picky nerd voice]
|
|
Its possible that Hogarth's axiom of '90% of everthing is crap', may be the "unspoken" rule of thumb I spoke of earlier.[picky nerd voice] Actually that axiom is known as Sturgeon's Law [/picky nerd voice]
\
Right on. Thanks for the Ninja reference.Here's a connundrum: if the Pareto principle referrs to 80/20 and Sturgeon's Law referrs to 90/10... can we assess that crap is on the rise with a 10% increase?
|
Here's a connundrum: if the Pareto principle referrs to 80/20 and Sturgeon's Law referrs to 90/10... can we assess that crap is on the rise with a 10% increase?
The DMG seems increasingly to be the work of some fanatical Homebrewer who wrote his own DMG and then got a job at Wizards...granted the core concepts seem increasingly plundered from obscure games manuals like Fallout for the Mac. The Idea that they should be increasing the percentage amount of 'good stuff' in a DMG is not going to happen anymore if each edition's legacy is abandoned to keep the game WOTC controlled.
Had they persisted with reprinting the same first edition game engine, it would not be long before the copyright expied and the Game became public property.
This has as much to do with the reason Gygaxian Naturalism was abandoned as the increasing number of players dissatisfied with that "World View".
I think the real problem with the number of monsters is that (a) "90% of everything is crap" and (b) adding new races to an existing game is awkward. It has little to do with the relative quality of various monster books.
Perhaps, but there's also something often overlooked -- just because it is in the rules doesn't mean it is in the campaign. One of the things I hate the most about the new 4E (even though I still prefer the ruleset in general) is that the designers present an anything goes viewpoint; instead of a "anything is _possible_" viewpoint. I mean... there are what, 13 races now? blech...
granted the core concepts seem increasingly plundered from obscure games manuals like Fallout for the Mac.
Then it may not surprise you that Zeb Cook wrote the story for Fallout.
-Ben.
So, you make a good point, Court Fool — PAIZO might actualy be such good quality that they defy Hogarth's axiom.
I only got the first adventure path, so I can only speak from that. I had a sense of “too many monsters” as I got each module. It is not that the monsters were not quality, they were.
It was more of a personal preference. I do not need half a dozen new monsters every adventure. I would rather delve the depths of one or two fully before moving on to the next fantastical monstrosity.
That really does not sell books, though.
As for the Pareto principle vs. Sturgeon's Law, I think both numbers are gross estimations. I know you were making a joke, but we are geeks after all. ;)
|
|
I would rather delve the depths of one or two fully before moving on to the next fantastical monstrosity.
You know, you make a great practical point about that. I too take a very "layered" and "saturating" approach to the introduction of beasts. I also try to be very thorough in the first beast/culture/ecology experience before I flash something new. I think I understand perfectly what you say on this point.
Here's my counterpoint. The rules Gygax wrote were more played than any edition since. 2e < 1e, 3x < 2e, number of players-wise.. 3x and 4e debatable in relation to each other.
I'm skeptical about this. Erik mentions the magazines peak year at some point and I thought he stated a date in the early to mid 90's. If I'm remembering Erik correctly and if sales of Dragon Magazine are a reasonable barometer to estimate how well the Dungeons and Dragons brand is doing then the game peaked sometime in 2nd edition.
There is a good post on Grognardia about "Too many monsters."
Now, James Malsewski is not trying to be contraversial, nor does he say he does not support or like various options and monster guides. But for those who are either grognards/old-schoolers, or simply long-time fans or players of the game - - you might remember how it went generally "unspoken" that while there were many guides that could be used, a "Good GM" would use great care and discretion in the selection of monsters that would believably populate their world. Additionally, and usually, some viable explanation would be given to support the existance of creatures within the game's mileau.
It simply went "un-said" back in those days, and for the past few decades, that while we often enjoyed seeing new ideas in print that we "could" use, that it was generally unlikely that their quality, caliber, or integrity would match up to the game's inherent setting.
In fact, just using the monsters in the original 1e MMI, for example, plus some from the MMII, and careful selection from the FF, were all one really needed for a life-time's worth of gaming. In fact, in the very best games, it went without saying that the GM was likely to set up the "usual" gygaxian mileau. That meant, orcs, goblins, trolls, dragons, some gnolls, and an occasional abberation or two, etc. (list not all inclusive)
There really wasn't the kind of video-game-esque indifference to the amount and kind of opponent faced. In fact, we carefully selected only the most integral beasts based on the location, setting, world story, etc.
There wasn't a lot of randomly dropping whilly-nilly any old CR beast into rooms, as several modules would have you believe. In fact, some of the integrity of the actual game mileau itself was bungled by its very owners and marketeers. They did this knowingly to boost sales. And even the games co-creator got carried away.
Yes, I know what you might be thinking.... if Gary got carried away, how can it be that Pax somehow knows what is Gygaxian and not.
Well - there is a lot of room in a fantasy game for variation - it is the spice of life. And, everyone can be respected for their right to imagine what they will without judgment. As for what is gygaxian - this can be determined by his writing itself. Check out the early books, check out his INSIDIAE, or other Gygaxian Fantasy Realms series. The 1e DMG is perhaps the best rpg book ever written - and should be a "must-read" for all new would-be GMs for any edition.
When James M coined "Gygaxian Naturalism" he was referring to these things... a distinction that to create a unique mileau, one had to be both selective and consistant, as for the most part e.g.g. was. Because, unlike 4e where "Anything Goes", a gygaxian mileau demonstrates that if everyone is special than nobody is special. This translated, for us back then - and now, to a campaign setting where the GM would determine where the monsters lived, and reasoned away the existance of most of the possible creatures - leaving in its place only the ones that would be there, should be there, could be there.
Hmmm...interesting. I find myself wanting to address a number of related but somewhat divergent concepts when considering this.
--------------
I guess I'll start with the most heretical of the points. While I think Mr. Malsewski has a good point I also think Mr. Gygax just rolled over in his grave. When it comes to making new monsters I doubt there is an authour anywhere that was more prolific then Mr. Gygax (a theme that Knights of the Dinner Table touches on several times in poking fun at Mr. Gygax). You seem to indicate that you feel that TSR might have gotten carried away, possibly in the pursuit of profit, in terms of introducing new monsters. I disagree - profit might have been nice but I believe that at its core Mr. Gygax just loved making monsters and would do so given any opportunity at all.
If we look at the adventures Mr. Gygax published it quickly becomes apparent that they nearly always include a fair number of new monsters and often they include a whole plethora of new ones. In fact I doubt any module writer from the era had as many new monsters in their products, on average, as Mr. Gygax. The standout in this regards is Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth which practically includes a mini-monster manual. Furthermore its not like Mr. Gygax was short of monsters to fill the niches for this product and had to go and make up new ones. Many monsters from the original Monster Manual or Fiend Folio could have been utilized, Fiend Folio was only around a year old when this adventure came out so its material was still comparatively fresh. Isle of the Ape is another standout example with what must be dozens of dinosaurs coming into existence for that product.
I've heard this idea expressed before - most specifically by Steve Jackson soon after GURPS was released and I think the concept has merits, particularly in light of pulp fantasy, where there are usually only a handful of creatures serving as foils for the hero's but Mr. Gygax, from his body of work, would seem to disagree.
In fact I think we see the strongest move away from this, in terms of D&D (many other RPGs really do step pretty dramatically away from this - D&D is kind of unique with its huge monster population), during 2nd edition. Still lots of monsters but the rate of inclusion of new ones did not seem quite as high. There also seemed to be a stronger tendency to utilize iconic monsters repeatedly instead of introducing new ones. I suspect that this is in part because 2nd edition moved furthest away from dungeons as the iconic location for adventure. 3rd moved back to the idea of having lots of monsters and lots of variety presumably as part of the 'Back to the Dungeon' movement that they were instituting with the release of 3rd Edition. As it stands it would seem that both Paizo and WotC are on board with the theme of lots of new monsters as both companies sure love to create new ones.
----------
OK on to point #2.
You mention that you feel DMs, historically speaking, tended to use a much more constrained list of monsters in their game, throwing in new ones only comparatively rarely and that many of these monsters probably came from a an even smaller list of truly iconic fantasy D&D monsters. I agree but I suspect that if you went from one DMs table to the next what you'd actually find is that the main stay monsters had some significant variability and essentially represented each individual DMs favorites. Now these monsters would have a strong place in the world but that'd be because the DM tied them in strongly to his campaign.
In effect I don't think this particularly limited subset of monsters was ever really supported by the published material but was instead a product of the fact that most DMs of the time tended to be younger and tended to be using a lot of home brewed adventures. If you were not and instead choose to run purely published modules you'd soon find yourself utilizing a wider array of monsters simply because published material tended to use a more diverse subset of monsters then homebrewed material.
Here again I suspect if you wanted to stick to some kind of core your best bet would probably be to start picking and choosing from 2nd edition Dungeon submissions as they were the most likely to concentrate on iconic monsters. One gets the impression that the editors of the magazine at that time frowned on using new monsters when a perfectly serviceable one already existed, hence you'd need a good plot reason to be introducing a new monster. Paizo and WotC seem to clearly edge in the opposite direction with the coming of 3rd. Probably significantly because its now verbotten to create adventures that feature repeated encounters that are substantially the same. When every encounter has to try and feature some significant twist that makes it different from every other encounter in the adventure one routinely finds oneself turning to new or unique monsters to provide that twist.
Hence I suspect that some of the feeling that older versions of the game used less monsters is really more a product of demographics and free time available. Todays games played by older DMs tend to be more constrained by time, they therefore utilize far more published adventures and in so doing they feature the wide variety of monsters that have always been on offer in published material. If a DM, back in the day, did not have such free time and therefore used lots of pre-packaged adventures he'd have also used a lot of monsters. Conversely if one where to examine the work of a DM today that utilized only the 3.5, 4E or Pathfinder rule set and who wrote all her own adventure material one would probably find that she chooses to utilize a fairly small sub set of monsters centred around her favorites, but...
------------
Part 3 of this epic post.
...she'd probably still use more then her historical counterpart, I think she has too. At its core I think the modern versions of the game force the issue to some extent. The culprit here is combat time. Specifically just how long the players spend fighting the monsters. In Basic, 1st and 2nd Edition monsters did not really last very long at the table. Hence one could indulge fairly easily in the activity of making the Goblin lair that was full of pretty much nothing but Goblins. It did not matter that much that one might engage in fight after fight with monsters that were essentially identical to the last batch you just dispatched because it only took 20 minutes to get rid of each set of the vermin. Under these conditions its possible to adhere more closely to some kind of Gygaxian Naturalism by making a Goblin Lair just a Goblin Lair without to much else going on. Note though that while I think one can do this and I think its the kind of thing that will make ones world feel authentic I can't think of very many products that actually did do this even from back in the day. From the Keep on the Borderland to all the adventures presented in Dungeon one finds that there is almost always something going on. The exceptions generally centre around side encounters that might be found while on ones way to White Plume Mountain (did this have any side encounters outside the mountain?)
In the modern versions of the game combat is going to take a pretty substantial amount of time and this has resulted in adventures that almost always feature new and exciting twists for every combat. Slogging through one group of six Frost Giants only to then slug through a second group of substantially the same Frost Giants two rooms later is basically bad form when each encounter is likely to take around an hour to play out. Thats nearly an iron clad rule by todays publishers. I'd bet money that James would inform us that he almost never allows there to be rooms with descriptions like "this room also has 6 Guards...see Room # X for statistics, and when he does allow this its because his hands are tied by the page count. I suspect that todays better DMs follow the same rule of thumb.
|
|
After reading your articulate post, I went on to read some more about you Jeremy, and the D&D History you share as part of your profile. I am afraid that I am inclined to agree with your discussion points on the grounds that they have expanded my initial view, and provoked a great deal of thinking based on the sound and reasonable perceptions you've shared. Thank you.
|
|
Here's my counterpoint. The rules Gygax wrote were more played than any edition since. 2e < 1e, 3x < 2e, number of players-wise.. 3x and 4e debatable in relation to each other.I'm skeptical about this. Erik mentions the magazines peak year at some point and I thought he stated a date in the early to mid 90's. If I'm remembering Erik correctly and if sales of Dragon Magazine are a reasonable barometer to estimate how well the Dungeons and Dragons brand is doing then the game peaked sometime in 2nd edition.
Book sales peaked during 1e, though. Core rules, anyway. The sixth printing of the 1e Phb may be the best selling rpg product of all time. And, remember, a lot of us who didn't switch to 2e still bought the magazines, they were still useful as 2e material was compatable with 1e.
Trust me, 2e was popular, but it wasn't the fad 1e was.
Edit: another thing to consider is this: the early nineties were when the largest historical group of rpg players hit college, and presumably had a bit more control over where they spent money. Or they were working and had complete control. I would be interested to know what sales looked like in the mid- nineties, when the 1e ad&d wave graduated and had to spend more time dealing with jobs and kids and whatnot.
Thank you.
I applaud you, Pax.
LOL. Understood.
I was not be facetious (for once). Seriously considering an opposing perspective and even admitting they have a valid point is something to be promoted and admired.
I disagree - profit might have been nice but I believe that at its core Mr. Gygax just loved making monsters and would do so given any opportunity at all.
There may be some merit in this, particularly with Tsojcanth as an example. But I think there's another interpretation as well.
A lot of modules in 1e included a new monster or two because Gygax/TSR/Old Editors-in-Charge thought it was good to include a new enigma each module when the new creature was encountered. In fact, I believe that was part of the basic formula of ye olde tournament adventure, the very thing that led to a lot of the 1e modules.
Edit: another thing to consider is this: the early nineties were when the largest historical group of rpg players hit college, and presumably had a bit more control over where they spent money. Or they were working and had complete control. I would be interested to know what sales looked like in the mid- nineties, when the 1e ad&d wave graduated and had to spend more time dealing with jobs and kids and whatnot.
Presumably they'd be graduating or getting deep into their studies by the late 90's if your estimate of early 90's as when they hit college is correct. As we all know TSR pretty much collapsed in the late '90's. Its certainly plausible that less time to game resulted in a collapse of sales for TSR.
That said there seems to be a really big hole in this theory. 3rd edition sold like hot cakes, maybe not quite the peak that was early to mid 90's but a significant and rather dramatic recovery. That tells us that something about 2nd edition must have been loosing players by the late '90s and that significant numbers of either old or new players returned with the release of 3rd.
I disagree - profit might have been nice but I believe that at its core Mr. Gygax just loved making monsters and would do so given any opportunity at all.There may be some merit in this, particularly with Tsojcanth as an example. But I think there's another interpretation as well.
A lot of modules in 1e included a new monster or two because Gygax/TSR/Old Editors-in-Charge thought it was good to include a new enigma each module when the new creature was encountered. In fact, I believe that was part of the basic formula of ye olde tournament adventure, the very thing that led to a lot of the 1e modules.
Oh I think that TSR was comfortable with the practice. I just think that it also happened to jive very well with the fact that Mr. Gygax loved to make monsters.
Were we get into a spot of potential heresy is if we then contemplate whether or not a continuing influx of new monsters is good for the average D&D campaign. There are good arguments for deciding that the answer is no and that we ought to stick to a much more constrained list of monsters in order to allow us to fit each monster more firmly and consistently into our worlds ecosystem.
If we do decide that fewer more consistent monsters are in fact the best way to go we then have to face the fact that this is not the answer that has been chosen by any edition of the game, not 1st, 3rd, 4E or Pathfinder. In effect we are now swimming against the tide and will have to start getting really picky with using published material because of the tendency of published material to constantly give us new monsters,
|
|
Edit: another thing to consider is this: the early nineties were when the largest historical group of rpg players hit college, and presumably had a bit more control over where they spent money. Or they were working and had complete control. I would be interested to know what sales looked like in the mid- nineties, when the 1e ad&d wave graduated and had to spend more time dealing with jobs and kids and whatnot.
Presumably they'd be graduating or getting deep into their studies by the late 90's if your estimate of early 90's as when they hit college is correct. As we all know TSR pretty much collapsed in the late '90's. Its certainly plausible that less time to game resulted in a collapse of sales for TSR.
That said there seems to be a really big hole in this theory. 3rd edition sold like hot cakes, maybe not quite the peak that was early to mid 90's but a significant and rather dramatic recovery. That tells us that something about 2nd edition must have been loosing players by the late '90s and that significant numbers of either old or new players returned with the release of 3rd.
WotC bought TSR in '97, so 2e must have been doing rather poorly through much of the '90s, really. 3rd edition sold well, better than other contemporary RPGs, but it wasn't even close to 1e sales. Heck, TSR did a 17th printing of the 1e PHB two years after 2e was released, as vendors were still ordering (and presumably selling) it. They sold an insane number of 1e PHBs. WotC didn't sell an insane number of 3e/3.5 PHBs.
I agree that some came back for 3e that didn't buy into 2e (I was one), but to suggest WotC had numbers even close to TSR had in the '80s is crazy talk. By the time 3x was released, our hobby was already niche, no longer the phenomenon it once was.
D20 made things look rosy, with all of the 3pp producing material, but that was all for, basically, the same system. In the '80s , we had a choice between dozens and dozens of systems for RPGs. The hobby could support such diversity then. It cannot now. Basically, we have d20 derivatives, 4e, WoD, GURPs, HERO and Shadowrun, with three of those being a fraction of the basically D&D derivatives and WoD.
|
|
The 500th Post...
So, I've begun a deep search into the origins of the game, but will admit that the 1990s are a bit sketchy for me. That is, I remember the slump, and I remember when Skills & Powers came out (ostensibly 2.5, or whatever game historians will call it, we were all like.... "huh?" "what's up with the game...?" We tried some of it, but never really did much with the rules. A lot of what was 2nd edition in the circles I traveled in amounted to "options." I seem to recall that was the theme in the 90's more options for your characters.
In any case, please allow me to share this interestingly written bit of history, written by someone around 1999. In my history classes, I remember learning that its important to look at "Primary Source" documents, that is, its sometimes good to read documents from folks who were actually there, and lived through it, and actually wrote about it during those years. But, enough of reality.... without further a-do, here is the linky:
Steve Darlington's: A History of Role-Playing
I neither endorse nor confirm this history, however, I found it an enlightening read. Enjoy.