|
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.
I'll be honest, I like it because the writer seems to reinforce a lot of what I've been saying on the various "save the game/young players/what's wrong with..." threads. It's always nice to read something coming from the same perspective my own thoughts come from. Makes me all warm and fuzzy :)
|
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.
Hello,
While I think your post is very interesting and well written, I would not agree with that particular sentence. There were TONS on new monsters in 2e, often at the back of modules, (and not all of them were converted to 3e).
IMO, writers tend to include new monsters at the back of modules to make their adventure more memorable, and to please completist DMS like me. For instance, I scared the hell out of my players last week with the sinspawn from "Burnt Offerings".
And you're right, Gary probably started this trend.
Now the thing, is sure, I enjoy my old favourites monsters, and use them more than others, but I still can't get enough new critters.
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.
TSR was brought down by mismanagement, some of which you allude to (perhaps unintentionally) in your post. Printing 1e two years after 2e is released? Not a brilliant move from a management/squandering money perspective.
Various analyses have blamed the diversification of settings, high production value/low profit margin of products like boxed sets (of which there were many), and cash flow as main problem areas - not the popularity and sales of 2e at its core. This was also at a time when CCGs like Magic were at their highest point of competition with RPGs. The pie that TSR was cutting slices out of had comparatively suddenly gotten a heck of a lot smaller.
|
|
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.
TSR was brought down by mismanagement, some of which you allude to (perhaps unintentionally) in your post. Printing 1e two years after 2e is released? Not a brilliant move from a management/squandering money perspective.
Various analyses have blamed the diversification of settings, high production value/low profit margin of products like boxed sets (of which there were many), and cash flow as main problem areas - not the popularity and sales of 2e at its core. This was also at a time when CCGs like Magic were at their highest point of competition with RPGs. The pie that TSR was cutting slices out of had comparatively suddenly gotten a heck of a lot smaller.
No, printing books that sell to people who want to buy is never a bad idea. Especially since they weren't running more copies of the 1e books than were ordered. Printing a ton of crap very few people want to buy (all the four zillion world specific boxed sets that came out in the 2e era), thinking everyone into D&D would buy everything released by the company was. I doubt there was a ton of 1e stuff rotting in the warehouses in '97. I know there was a ton of 2e stuff rotting there.
Supporting 1e for a couple of years after releasing 2e wasn't what brought TSR down. Producing a milquetoast edition and splitting their own customer base into Ravenloft/Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms/Planescape/Spelljammer/Mystara/Maztica/Kara Tur/Al Qadim/Dark Sun/Dragonlance/ad nauseum players, coupled with the stupid three ring binder (crap quality) monster manual and all the other crap 2e peripherals brought them down.
"Keep it Simple, Stupid" was a lost concept in the Williams era of TSR.
|
|
And through all this. After all this history, the ups and the downs, why is there a sense that the current so-called incarnation seems the most distant from the others? The books seem uninspiring, and the content seems twisted nonsensically... it seems like there has been a determined rejection of the past.
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.Hello,
While I think your post is very interesting and well written, I would not agree with that particular sentence. There were TONS on new monsters in 2e, often at the back of modules, (and not all of them were converted to 3e).
IMO, writers tend to include new monsters at the back of modules to make their adventure more memorable, and to please completist DMS like me. For instance, I scared the hell out of my players last week with the sinspawn from "Burnt Offerings".
And you're right, Gary probably started this trend.
Now the thing, is sure, I enjoy my old favourites monsters, and use them more than others, but I still can't get enough new critters.
In total I'm sure your right, what I'm thinking of is sort of a density issue. There were a huge number of products for 2nd, likely more then there were for 'officially' (that is from WotC) for 3rd. Certainly far more then their were for 1st. So what I'm arguing is that if there were four times the number of products for 2nd when compared to 1st (and here I'm just guessing - I have not bothered to count how many products there were for 2nd when compared to 1st) there are only, at a guess, 125%-200% more monsters.
Considering how much 2nd often focused on specific campaign settings this number actually falls off in many games since there is tactic acknowledgment that many monsters just don't belong in many worlds. In essence you actually get something closer to the idea that a smaller number of monsters define a specific campaign setting. So Darksun only actually utilizes a relatively constrained number of monsters from the main monster source books and adds some of its own. Darksun products therefore get closest to the idea expressed by Pax and Mr. Malsewski of focusing on a smaller subset of monsters and building them into the actual setting.
Compare and contrast this with 1st, 3rd and the modern versions of the games clear emphasis of 'monsters are for everywhere'. Thats not to say that 2nd edition did this particularly well if one compares it to other RPGs or even to contend that many DMs might be perfectly happy to use Darksun monsters in their Forgotten Realms campaign. I'm simply contending that 2nd edition got closer to this then the other editions and that 1st, 3rd and the modern versions were or are explicitly following a 'monsters are for everywhere' model while 2nd was focused on individual campaign setting like Ravenloft and Spelljammer and hence had a priority of making monsters that fit with the settings in question.
TSR was brought down by mismanagement, some of which you allude to (perhaps unintentionally) in your post. Printing 1e two years after 2e is released? Not a brilliant move from a management/squandering money perspective.Various analyses have blamed the diversification of settings, high production value/low profit margin of products like boxed sets (of which there were many), and cash flow as main problem areas - not the popularity and sales of 2e at its core. This was also at a time when CCGs like Magic were at their highest point of competition with RPGs. The pie that TSR was cutting slices out of had comparatively suddenly gotten a heck of a lot smaller.
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR. Sadly, WoTC now continues their rejection of Gygax's setting, though they seem to love to pay tribute to him, now that he's passed...
|
|
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.Hello,
While I think your post is very interesting and well written, I would not agree with that particular sentence. There were TONS on new monsters in 2e, often at the back of modules, (and not all of them were converted to 3e).
IMO, writers tend to include new monsters at the back of modules to make their adventure more memorable, and to please completist DMS like me. For instance, I scared the hell out of my players last week with the sinspawn from "Burnt Offerings".
And you're right, Gary probably started this trend.
Now the thing, is sure, I enjoy my old favourites monsters, and use them more than others, but I still can't get enough new critters.
In total I'm sure your right, what I'm thinking of is sort of a density issue. There were a huge number of products for 2nd, likely more then there were for 'officially' (that is from WotC) for 3rd. Certainly far more then their were for 1st. So what I'm arguing is that if there were four times the number of products for 2nd when compared to 1st (and here I'm just guessing - I have not bothered to count how many products there were for 2nd when compared to 1st) there are only, at a guess, 125%-200% more monsters.
Considering how much 2nd often focused on specific campaign settings this number actually falls off in many games since there is tactic acknowledgment that many monsters just don't belong in many worlds. In essence you actually get something closer to the idea that a smaller number of monsters define a specific campaign setting. So Darksun only actually utilizes a relatively constrained number of monsters from the main monster source books and adds some of its...
With excellent respect given to the knowledge you both possess, I would clarify that a campaign setting isn't so much a curiosity of mine, as they are distinct variant manifestations of the d&d mileau. And, to avoid long words it strikes me that there was indeed one singular Gygaxian mileau intended as the plane of the fantasy realm, Then, every game master's variant, including boxed set campaign realms, were intended as different incarnations of the same, except in cases where the setting was specified as other than the prime material plane. And this is why for years as players, we instinctively felt that although different worlds and settings were used, that our PCs were somehow all part of one coherent dungeons and dragons plane that took on many different aspects and incarnations, depending on our imaginations. Gamers back then kind of imagined that all these different worlds were somehow still the world of D&D as opposed to say, differnt planets in in different solar systems. That is, if we look from Tolkein, to Lewis, to Vance, and through Appendix N, it would seem the % and number appearing guidelines have generally presented orcs, goblins, dwarves, elves, halflings, trolls, giants, oozes, undead .....
*Pax pauses in a moment of reflection*
My mind has wandered to the creature category types... and *gasps*
I think I am understanding better why so many folks have a dislike for, and gut aversion to 4e. It would seem that rather than keep with the traditions of the standard creatures in the mileau, they have attempted to "bring-in" all the stuff they liked from other "worlds" or alternate settings into the core materials. And, thus, many are instinctivey apt to reject their core re-concepting, as it feels like they have rejected Gygax & Arneson's core vision. For many, the proposed new "core" feels so unintuitive with the core that defined the game for 30+ years, that many feel it is ill-conceived, or incoherent...
|
|
Here is what I was looking for earlier...
I believe 4e is like a mutant gene, related only remotely to what was once the game. Pathfinder Role-playing Game continues our tradition on the very foundation of 3e, upon 2e, and 1e, Oe, etc.
Here is what Gary Gygax wrote in the Preface of his 1976-1979 work that became the Dungeon Master's Guide:
"Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is to issue a death warrant to a campaign. Similarly, you avoid the tendency to drift into areas foreign to the game as a whole. Such campaigns become so strange as to be no longer "AD&D". They are isolated and usually wither. Variation and difference are desireable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included; that is why nebulous areas have been build into the game. Keep such individuality in perspective by developing a unique and detailed world based on the rules of Advanced D&D. No two campaigns will ever be the same, but all will have the common ground necessary to maintaining the whole as a viable entity about which you and your players can communicate with the many thousands of others who also find swords & sorcery role playing gaming as an amusing and enjoyable pastime." - E.Gary Gygax -
And what seems to strike a chord for many of us is the following:
"...what is aimed at is a 'universe' into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and 'laws', players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning — or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. Thus uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades."
-E.Gary Gygax-
The bit about parallel worlds, uniformity, and elemental systems are the items that came back to me earlier. Gary's naturalism in regard to creatures of all kinds is just one part of the foundation he set forth, one that carried with it many purposefully nebulous areas for individual development, and areas that were always meant to have similarities.
This is the faith that has been broken. This is the tradition that has been abandoned. This is why so many feel 4e was set up as an effort to reject Gygaxian traditions, and break away from it but still keep the game's title for purposes of sales. Yet, they did not expect the games co-creator to pass on in the midst of this change. And so, I begin to understand why this 'break from the past', including perhaps the disappearance of all legacy .Pdfs from the TSR era, has backfired.
No, printing books that sell to people who want to buy is never a bad idea. Especially since they weren't running more copies of the 1e books than were ordered. Printing a ton of crap very few people want to buy (all the four zillion world specific boxed sets that came out in the 2e era), thinking everyone into D&D would buy everything released by the company was. I doubt there was a ton of 1e stuff rotting in the warehouses in '97. I know there was a ton of 2e stuff rotting there.
Actually, it can be when it directly competes with what is supposed to be your current flagship product. You may be able to sell to both, but if you're trying to close down one product and move people to the new one, you've got problems if you're actively printing materials for both. Fortunately, the backward compatibility was substantial and the 1e stuff could be used with newer 2e materials easily, but it's still a bad move.
It's an even worse move if you're only printing enough books to meet the orders. It will keep the unit cost of the print run higher than you want it to be. The larger the print run, the cheaper per unit they are, the more profit per unit sold you make.I'm not going to say that this brought TSR down, but it's symptomatic of bad business decisions being endemic to the company.
|
|
Here is what I was looking for earlier...
Lots of good stuff...
Well said, and what I believe also. I have gone back to 1st principles and restarted a 1e AD&D game. Why? Because it is fun and everyone in my group fundamentally knows exactly how the universe works. Sort of like everyone not having to agree on the way gravity works, we just all know it does and what effects it has. 3e started the break (ALL Races can be ALL classes and have Unlimited level advancement) and 4e completed the break from what Gygax intended. But having said that I am unsure if we should be trying to make Gygax's AD&D again, we still have his AD&D and no one can stop you playing it. In fact there is a free download of what is effectively the 1e PHB/DMG/MM (OSRIC v2.0). Gygax's D&D was also embodied in his writing style as well as the rules themselves, and that we have lost forever sadly for new material. I would suggest that if you want Gygaxian naturalism then either dust off, buy on eBay 1e AD&D. 2e, 3e, 4e, or Xe will never be truly Gygaxian - only derivatives of his great work. I am uncertain if any of the newer D&D editions improved on 1e AD&D in terms of "fun to play", only differed it slightly (or greatly, 4e I'm looking at you).
S.
|
|
Here is what I was looking for earlier...Lots of good stuff...
@ S,
Done & Done. I did dust of 1e this year, and am re-reading through the complete collection. And, it is a marvelous sense of the "baseline" that the community would benefit to never forget. I've chronicled some of my research into 1e vs. retro-clones in the thread called OSRIC 2.0 (OGL) vs. 1st Edition vs. C&C (OGL)And you raise a great point - that we have lost Gary Gygax, and I think we agree (since in addition to Pathfinder Beta, you're playing OSRIC 2.0, as am I), that there is incredible fun to be had in that very viable and relevant system. I think there are many more who will follow us back to our roots, in order to make sense of how the game has evolved, and see with more clarity, the context of the game we are actually playing.
It seems to me, like history, it is important to know where we have come from. It is good to have a sense of foundations. And, while change occurs, and it always will, it is critical to have a keen eye upon new creations while seeing it more completely through the lens of the past.
|
|
Yeah, I just recently reacquired the essential (and some non-essential - Unearthed Arcana) AD&D 1e books, and, man I want to start up a campaign.
Just reading through the books makes me sad about how far the game has moved (even Pathfinder, as much as I dig it) from its roots. You know, for all the dense prose and crazy erudite tone of the 1e DMG, I still think it is one of the greatest rpg reads ever.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing. I must say that, even though I'm a youngster by the standards of all you geezers (kidding!), and have never played anything but 3e, I find that I agree with this concept. I have glanced at 2e monster sources before, and was intrigued by the ecological information. I know that 2e was the apex of non-combat information for just about everything, particularly cultures and customs of races and nations throughout the various settings, and I am sorely disappointed that I never got to experience those things as they were ported into 3e (because, well... they mostly weren't). But though 3e seems to have toned down its Gygaxian Naturalism in some cases, it isn't without it completely.
For example, I remember looking through the 3.5 MM when I first got it and thinking to myself, "Why in the world does the pit fiend have so many spell-like abilities? There's no way even a dozen of these things together would ever have a chance to use them all in a combat! Most of them wouldn't do anything at that level, anyway." Similar thoughts crossed my mind in regards to the beholder's charm ray. But then I realized that it was important for these creatures to have those abilities to add depth and possibilities outside of combat. It gave an idea of how they conducted themselves; how they would fortify their lairs, what creatures they might have serving them, etc. In some cases, it was just an indication of the lifestyle creature X leads.
And I also noticed that those types of little details were lacking in other monster supplements that came out over the years; each iteration of the MM seemed to bring less and less information (except perhaps the MM IV, which I do not own but heard had a lot of guides regarding lairs and such, though I'm not so sure about the ecology). The monsters were just new combinations of numbers to challenge PCs, with a pretty picture slapped on top.
Anyway, that's enough rambling from me for now. Thank you for sharing the article, and a new term that I can...
I agree with this a lot. I've noticed, when reading my brother's 4e books, that the new system is entirely MMORPG-style combat only in it's focus. That's a shame and a real loss, IMHO, for the gamers - especially those of us that like more role-playing than roll-playing.
For example, I remember looking through the 3.5 MM when I first got it and thinking to myself, "Why in the world does the pit fiend have so many spell-like abilities? There's no way even a dozen of these things together would ever have a chance to use them all in a combat! Most of them wouldn't do anything at that level, anyway." Similar thoughts crossed my mind in regards to the beholder's charm ray. But then I realized that it was important for these creatures to have those abilities to add depth and possibilities outside of combat. It gave an idea of how they conducted themselves; how they would fortify their lairs, what creatures they might have serving them, etc. In some cases, it was just an indication of the lifestyle creature X leads.And I also noticed that those types of little details were lacking in other monster supplements that came out over the years; each iteration of the MM seemed to bring less and less information (except perhaps the MM IV, which I do not own but heard had a lot of guides regarding lairs and such, though I'm not so sure about the ecology). The monsters were just new combinations of numbers to challenge PCs, with a pretty picture slapped on top.
I agree whole-heartedly with this, and as such is one of my biggest reasons I couldn't get into 4e; the sense of immersing yourself in another world was gone, replaced by cold, lifeless stat blocks. I didn't get to really start seriously gaming until 3e, but have since acquired a lot of 2e material just for the fluff, monster ecologies, and campaign material.
A lot of nay-sayers say that the new edition gives you "more control" to make stuff up, but maybe I don't want to make every-single-little-thing! Maybe I'm a sucky DM, but I prefer to have something to go by, to draw from for inspiration.
|
|
Yeah, I just recently reacquired the essential (and some non-essential - Unearthed Arcana) AD&D 1e books, and, man I want to start up a campaign.
Funny you should say that, my "orange spine" MM & MM2 arrived all the way from the US of A yesterday! Our campaign I am running is "orange spine" 1e AD&D, still a little undecided about UA due to some unbalancing factors (Deep Gnome / Drow / Cavalier / Weapon Specialization). As an aside...
I gave 4e a go as a player and it IS NOT 1e AD&D (but then neither is 3.xe/pathfinder) and if you accept 4e as 4e and not color with all the editions before its kind of fun (in fact very so). Like all RPG's it depends hugely on the DM, I remember a DM who DM'd Call of Cthulthu like he DM'd D&D. Needless to say the session was very short after the 4th character roll up in about 45 minutes... My point being for all the b-arching about 4e and what it has done to D&D when all it has done is impliment changes less disguised than those made by 3e and even 2e. Let's take 3e as an example, combat casting + mage + high level = bugger me!!! Gygax's magic-user was really in huge trouble most of the time if they were in combat, in fact he suggests the use of wands not trying cast spells if a loony with a sword is bearing down on you. 2e (with it's new initiative system) and 3e have made spell casting in combat much more likely - a huge, huge break from the intended. Just because 3e keeps the Vancian spell casting system doesn't mean its kept its AD&D roots. Beat 4e with a pigs bladder if it makes you feel better by all means, but don't forgot the "mote in 3e's own eye" when throwing around "but it's not D&D" comments. Not defending 4e (or 3e) because no one has too - if you don't like one or the other then don't play it.
S.
|
|
Yeah, I just recently reacquired the essential (and some non-essential - Unearthed Arcana) AD&D 1e books, and, man I want to start up a campaign.Funny you should say that, my "orange spine" MM & MM2 arrived all the way from the US of A yesterday! Our campaign I am running is "orange spine" 1e AD&D, still a little undecided about UA due to some unbalancing factors (Deep Gnome / Drow / Cavalier / Weapon Specialization). As an aside...
I gave 4e a go as a player and it IS NOT 1e AD&D (but then neither is 3.xe/pathfinder) and if you accept 4e as 4e and not color with all the editions before its kind of fun (in fact very so). Like all RPG's it depends hugely on the DM, I remember a DM who DM'd Call of Cthulthu like he DM'd D&D. Needless to say the session was very short after the 4th character roll up in about 45 minutes... My point being for all the b-arching about 4e and what it has done to D&D when all it has done is impliment changes less disguised than those made by 3e and even 2e. Let's take 3e as an example, combat casting + mage + high level = bugger me!!! Gygax's magic-user was really in huge trouble most of the time if they were in combat, in fact he suggests the use of wands not trying cast spells if a loony with a sword is bearing down on you. 2e (with it's new initiative system) and 3e have made spell casting in combat much more likely - a huge, huge break from the intended. Just because 3e keeps the Vancian spell casting system doesn't mean its kept its AD&D roots. Beat 4e with a pigs bladder if it makes you feel better by all means, but don't forgot the "mote in 3e's own eye" when throwing around "but it's not D&D" comments. Not defending 4e (or 3e) because no one has too - if you don't like one or the other then don't play it.
S.
I skipped 2e, played 3x since that's all I could find, gave 4e a go, found it fun, but even further removed from 1e AD&D (my Golden Standard for D&D play - I'm old, but not OD&D old...), am probably going to settle for PfRPG so I can find players, but I pine for the fjords of Gygax D&D...
Trust me, I have my issues with 3x (and you hit on one of them), but it's easier to houserule to how I play than 4e is (not having Vancian magic would upset some conventions in my homebrew, for instance, and I really don't want to nuke my homebrew like they did Faerun...).
But, if it has "D&D" on the cover, it's D&D (well, except for that abomination of a movie). It may not be a flavor of D&D I care to run (2e wasn't, 4e isn't, never really got into BECMI), but, to be honest, I'll play anything (except Vampire. WoD is an ok system, I can get into Werewolf (they kill vampires ;) ) I just really, REALLY hate vampires as a cultural phenomenon).
But, honestly, other than the rules similarities between 2e and 1e AD&D, all editions after 1e reject GN to one degree or another. 2e drifted away from the gritty, nasty, low fantasy of Gygaxian play to embrace more "heroic" fantasy in a sanitized (at least in core, some of the campaign settings were pretty grim), kid and fanatic religious zealot friendly way. 3x jumped the shark towards the end of the line, and just paid lip service to Gygaxian play by using Greyhawk as the default, then not supporting Greyhawk for crap, and 4e completely broke the mechanical chain.
So, I guess after all that rambling, I'm basically saying I agree 100% Stefan!
I gave 4e a go as a player and it IS NOT 1e AD&D (but then neither is 3.xe/pathfinder) and if you accept 4e as 4e and not color with all the editions before its kind of fun (in fact very so). Like all RPG's it depends hugely on the DM, I remember a DM who DM'd Call of Cthulthu like he DM'd D&D. Needless to say the session was very short after the 4th character roll up in about 45 minutes... My point being for all the b-arching about 4e and what it has done to D&D when all it has done is impliment changes less disguised than those made by 3e and even 2e. Let's take 3e as an example, combat casting + mage + high level = bugger me!!! Gygax's magic-user was really in huge trouble most of the time if they were in combat, in fact he suggests the use of wands not trying cast spells if a loony with a sword is bearing down on you. 2e (with it's new initiative system) and 3e have made spell casting in combat much more likely - a huge, huge break from the intended. Just because 3e keeps the Vancian spell casting system doesn't mean its kept its AD&D roots. Beat 4e with a pigs bladder if it makes you feel better by all means, but don't forgot the "mote in 3e's own eye" when throwing around "but it's not D&D" comments. Not defending 4e (or 3e) because no one has too - if you don't like one or the other then don't play it.
ditto
|
|
Good discussion Ghettoedge, Houstonderek, Jandrem, CinnamnonPixie and Stefan Hill... very good, indeed. A few quick comments back this evening:
The bit about "uninspired books", yeah, good observation. Just picking up a so-called new edition book is completely uninspiring. It is almost as if they're designed for some far-off country, where the general populace doesn't expect to be inspired by the game, so much as perhaps expect the game to play like Magic the Gathering...? Seriously, what is that? I've longed for years for companies to learn to more concisely present information, like in SORD, and SORD Plus for pathfinder. In fact, that's about as "uninspired" as I like to get. Those 25 pages of rules and charts are, ostensibly, my Pathfinder Gamemaster guide. But, someone mentioned that its because they're a sucky GM that they desire to be inspired—NO, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a GOOD GM who knows how to look for inspiration in things like pictures and books! After 25+ years of playing this game, I still draw inspiration from these books. Lately, I've been getting very inspired by leafing through Tome of Horrors I, II, and III.
So much for short comments (lol).
And, as for third edition:
>Around the turn of the millenium, it was sensible to give the game a face lift. It really caught the eye of plenty thirty somethings who may have been away from the game for a while. Also - "the higher the number, the better the roll" helped the game. Seriously, as for a unified d20 (which was popular and OGL at the time) this was a good move in the interest of the game. I tend to agree that 2e, and most absolutely 1e (ORANGE BINDING) are the roots of the game. I just also leafed through the Moldvey series. I was looking in the red box for something yesterday... And, yeah, that stuff just dripps with the genuine game. I also spend time re-reading Gygax's 1e DMG. This should be a "must read" for anyone wishing to improve their GMing skills.
I do like what Matthew Finch has done with his White Box retro-clone, however, my retro game of choice is OSRIC 2.0. What a brilliant, absolutely brilliant way to honor First Edition with a modern print. If I read the signs of the times correctly, there's a swelling resurgence of interest in First Edition games. One that I hope to be a part of.
I love Pathfinder - and as to the comments about 3.x and Pathfinder RPG being dnd...
4e - a case of bad marketing, bad pr, bad customer services, and poor resepect for history & tradition; positioned more in the interest of profit rather than the community; and coupled with the END of PAIZONIAN Dungeon and Dragon mags, plus the pulling of legacy .pdfs - this makes for the worst gaming experience ever.
By now its likely you know my view on 4e. It has certainly rejected more than just its share of Gygaxian Naturalism. That new game (which I might have enjoyed under a different name i.e. D&D Power Combat Variant) has abandoned many classic elements of the game. And, I believe they rejected several classic sensibilities Gygax put to paper.
3.x
Overall, my subtle point might be summed up this way: 1) dnd needed an overhaul back in 2000, and the OGL coupled with the fundamental d20 system was an "improvement" in the play of the game in terms of a unified system of gameplay. The art, and prolific writing of that era 2000-2007 has brought me my "favorite collection" of dnd to-date. I find v.3.5 to be a good and functional system that probably took us all by surprise, after some time of allowing the game to collect the dust of a faltering TSR company. There is enough (I'd say at least a majority of tropes, traditions, histories, and game elements) in the game to allow me to call v.3.5 Dungeons and Dragons with a level of certainty.
Erik Mona worked on Greyhawk! Sean K Reynolds wrote many things including FRCS (with others including Ed Greenwood)! Lisa Stevens is a die-hard gamer and CEO! James Jacobs wrote... well, a lot of things including Frostburn. My point here, is that the writers matter along with the content they write. PAIZO is set up with the right team to carry on our 30+ years of tradition and history, and are doing so with Pathfinder. I would say firmly, after reading through and playing Alpha 1, Alpha 2, and Beta with my players, that Pathfinder continues solidly, very certainly the essential of the game.
And, if you pressed the issue with me, I would concede. Because with Pathfinder is its own game. Hooray! I agree, Pathfinder is not dnd. And perhaps its time we no longer associate "dnd" in any modern sense with the branch that carries on Gary Gygax's traditions?
In sum of my so-called summary, imo:
>3.x - very much dnd
>4e - dnd in name only, a hollow and soul-less metagame, lacking enough integrity to call itself an "edition" of the game were it not for brutal and militant IP ownership.
>Pathfinder - not dnd, but carries the flame of tradition and history of our game into the 2010 decade! This is where the legacy of our game continues. This is very much the newest edition of dungeons and dragons except in name. This is the game created in the best interests of the community and the game itself (and yes, I won't argue that every business needs to make money - let's not debate that here). James Jacobs is holding true to keeping our vast v.3.5 collections very relevant, whereas wotci wanted us to abandon it, and said it was unkewl. James Jacobs believes in building Pathfinder in a way where backward compatibility was one of the major design objectives! And, yes, any company to desire to stay so true to continuity, and with that much passion around making the game we all want to play by holding the worlds largest open playtest, deserves five stars ***** and recognition in my book of writing (perhaps, we shall see), the best edition of dnd yet!
For as you know, even I, one of the most adamant traditionalists, am willing to turn away from wotc, abandon them who have abandoned me, and stay with PAIZO who demonstrates superior customer service and most of the highest quality gaming materials in the business. (Monte's Ptolus still holds the highest production value in quality though).
Okay - long, long, un-proofed, quickly-typed paragraphs are done. I hope somewhere, gentle reader, that I have been able to make a point here without any intention of inflaming. It is here at the crossroads that I hope we're able to see that what remains of Gygaxian gaming... albeit 3e did do its own thing to a strong degree, ... but what remains can is still respectfully preserved and continued with Pathfinder. Would you agree?
|
|
Lots of stuf...
I see what you mean. My only comment would be that you don't have to choose Pathfinder over 4e - it's not a divorce! You don't have to choose
to only live with Mum or Dad.Somewhere along the way I mellowed and warmed to 4e, involved looking at it with an open mind. Is it D&D, is Pathfinder D&D, is 3e/2e D&D? That can be debated ad nauseum.
I'm just unsure that if we take Gygax's vision (i.e. 1e AD&D) to its core that we can call any edition since then truly Gygaxian. I understand that mechanically 4e is a long way a way from 1e AD&D but how far is too far? Armor classes that go up is that too far? Fort/Ref/Will instead of Breath Weapon/Death Ray/etc is that too far? Same damage when you hit S/M or L is that too far? When does D&D stop being D&D? Each draws their own line in the sand as it were.
I was one of the "bash the horrid 4e players" and their evil overlord masters (WotC) when 4e first came out, but in hindsight what was the point. Was WotC going to notice my posts and stop production of 4e immediately? The turning point for me was seeing people post in the 4e forums about the fun they were having with 4e. Is it my right to tell them that their fun is wrong, their game is wrong?
Musings about nothing,
S.
|
|
Pax,
I would agree that the people who are bringing us Pathfinder have a lot of respect for the origins of the game, but they're using as a base a system that, unfortunately, changed quite a few of the assumptions of Gygaxian play (powerful but vulnerable wizards, fighters who could "shake it off" rather easily at high levels, magic was "special", not something found at Walmart, I could go on, but the Playtest threads are full of my points here). 3x changed too many of the 1e AD&D assumptions for me to completely give it a pass, but, like I said, it is very easy to houserule to make it play the way I want it to. So, by being open to DIY tinkering, I'd give it spirit points where I can't give it mechanical points.
Paizo writes adventures and modules that, to date, feel like old school brought to the modern era (which is a good thin, btw), and they return to some of the style assumptions Gygax brought to us. Just look at PFS. The Pathfinder Society isn't a heroic organization, they're glorified grave robbers, for the most part, just like the typical 1e character! Nods to the old ways like that are what keep me coming back. I feel comfortable the Paizo crew will continue the tradition and style of play I've enjoyed since I grew out of my "hack and slash, Monty Haul" phase, which is down and dirty, gritty low fantasy feeling (even if the system they use doesn't support gritty low fantasy mechanically).
I'm just happy I can still get the feeling. The mechanics? I can "fix" those. So, I guess I'll say: 85% agreement on Pathfinder.
I have to go with the opposite regarding 1e/2e. 2e is mechanically ok with me, but they "lost that loving feeling"...
Which is why I like d20 (Pathfinder) better than 2e. It's all about the heart.
;)
For me, personally, 4E reminds me very much of BECMI (which I started with and is 'my D&D' if you like), and so it gives me a warm glow that 3E never did. 3E reminds me too much of Rolemaster and GURPS, and if anything I think it was the edition that veered furtherest away from the game's 'roots' (not that I usually hold with such things).
Paizo writes adventures and modules that, to date, feel like old school brought to the modern era (which is a good thin, btw), and they return to some of the style assumptions Gygax brought to us. Just look at PFS. The Pathfinder Society isn't a heroic organization, they're glorified grave robbers, for the most part, just like the typical 1e character! Nods to the old ways like that are what keep me coming back. I feel comfortable the Paizo crew will continue the tradition and style of play I've enjoyed since I grew out of my "hack and slash, Monty Haul" phase, which is down and dirty, gritty low fantasy feeling (even if the system they use doesn't support gritty low fantasy mechanically).
I'd just like to point out that the relatively small 4E community that hangs out on these boards, for the most part, agrees that Paizo's 'look and feel' are the cats pajamas. Thats why most of us are here and willing to go through the trouble of converting the material.
|
|
Hmmmnnnn....
Good thoughts.
Especially, The Righteous Brothers' reference,
...and the cat's pajamas...
But seriously - I haven't even thought about 2e for very much the same reason.... I'm inclined to say, I am not sure I ever really fully followed that system to any level of detail. I certainly played it - a lot, but I seem to recall much more flowing imagination those days, moreso than adherance to rulesets....
When I think of Gygaxian, I mean the true foundational design decisions - I tend to feel the very important ones were implied as though important through any edition.... perhaps I can dig up a few specific examples of this also.
And some good questions were asked.... afterall, I am not without heart, and 4e does seemingly contain some of the original game elements...... Hmmmmmnnnn. Yeah, where was the line?
Was the line crossed at 3rd ed.? Well, I've already said that on the whole 3e improved the game. Yet the points made about BCMI and 1e do seem to also fly in the face of 3e changes....
You've given us some important considerations, thank you.
At the end of the day, I play Swords and Wizardry and 4E and love both. The both fire me up in different ways to play games with them.
I took a look at OSRIC and I have to admit I was tempted by Assassins and Type 1 Demons etc :D
|
|
For me, personally, 4E reminds me very much of BECMI (which I started with and is 'my D&D' if you like), and so it gives me a warm glow that 3E never did. 3E reminds me too much of Rolemaster and GURPS, and if anything I think it was the edition that veered furtherest away from the game's 'roots' (not that I usually hold with such things).
I can see that (4e vis a vis BECMI), although I do think 4e has more going on than Basic did. There is a little bit more of a learning the rules investment going on, but not nearly to the extent 3x has.
@Pax: I think another line 3x crossed was in the level of mechanical knowledge and manipulation the players can bring to bear in 3x. I don't recall if it was on Grognardia (maybe in the comments or through a link) where I saw mention of the difference between player focused (AD&D, 1e anyway) and character focused (2e with "skills and powers" and 3x) games. OD&D and 1e AD&D were driven by what the players brought to the table, the character sheets really didn't mean much, really, whereas 2e with "skills and powers" and 3x were driven by what the characters could do, the character sheet defined the character more than the player did.
1e was a great example of the "rule of yes", whereas 3x was a great example of "...but you don't have [insert skill or feat that defined a mechanical consideration]". There are, fundamentally, two completely different approaches to a game that shares the same name.
@Fabes Mini: Having just typed that, I can better see where 4e reminds you of BECMI. Outside of combat, as far as I can tell, the "rule of yes" is more in effect in 4e than it is in 3x. The DM has more leeway to adjudicate actions, whereas in 3x, the DM can be limited by players' expectations based on their skill and feat selections.
Hmmm...
|
|
I saw mention of the difference between player focused (AD&D, 1e anyway) and character focused (2e with "skills and powers" and 3x) games. OD&D and 1e AD&D were driven by what the players brought to the table, the character sheets really didn't mean much, really, whereas 2e with "skills and powers" and 3x were driven by what the characters could do, the character sheet defined the character more than the player did.
Sometimes you just read things and think - yep. That is what I would call 3e greatest strength and greatest weakness comparing with 1e AD&D. In 1e AD&D no one would consider grappling a Dragon - why? It's silly and you would die. In 3e you add up all the bonuses and you still probably end up dead but it takes longer to figure that out! But there is that chance in 3e with the right feats/skills/level and you tuck the dragons head under your arm and make it say uncle. In 1e AD&D the DM ruled in 3e (& 2e) the rules sometimes ruled, er, you know what I mean.
2e/3e invented and developed the rules lawyer
1e/4e invented and developed the DM
Again points to the fact that the ruleset you like is by definition the best ruleset...
Great discussion - if only the 4e crusaders could see us now!
S.
Sometimes you just read things and think - yep. That is what I would call 3e greatest strength and greatest weakness comparing with 1e AD&D. In 1e AD&D no one would consider grappling a Dragon - why? It's silly and you would die. In 3e you add up all the bonuses and you still probably end up dead but it takes longer to figure that out! But there is that chance in 3e with the right feats/skills/level and you tuck the dragons head under your arm and make it say uncle. In 1e AD&D the DM ruled in 3e (& 2e) the rules sometimes ruled, er, you know what I mean.
Depending on the size of the dragon, it still might autofail in 3.x. If there is more than a two size catagory difference you can't win a grapple. On the other hand, why should a half-orc not think it could grab a wyrmling?
Personally I prefer the 3.x rules, then I can have the dwarf monk grab the tail of the large dragon trying to escape. It makes a memorable scene.
|
|
@Fabes Mini: Having just typed that, I can better see where 4e reminds you of BECMI. Outside of combat, as far as I can tell, the "rule of yes" is more in effect in 4e than it is in 3x. The DM has more leeway to adjudicate actions, whereas in 3x, the DM can be limited by players' expectations based on their skill and feat selections.
Hmmm...
Ah... on this point (the point about "rule of yes"... this is a classic improvisational technique as old as Stanislavski himself. Read any good acting book, or book about creativity and imagination, and you'll see the "rule of yes" there.
For those not familiar - this is the same principle that makes the comedy improv group "Second City" so successful, what makes commedians seem so spontaneous, and what makes good gamemasters stay really in the moment and deliver a fun game. This technique is perhaps best seen recently in use in the Drew Carry show, "Who's line is it anyway." But this most certainly was not an explicit principle, nor does it somehow rest with 4e (just because they wrote it down). This principle, as a mater of perspective is what good GMs do at the table, including 3.x GMs. Frankly, I must disagree with any notion that somehow this was in any way not applicable to 3rd edition games.
Now - before you hit reply to make your counterpoint, please allow me to also counterpoint my own view of 3x. With every bit of certainty - 3.x and all that it has done over the past nine years, has seemingly not encouraged the "rule of yes" because much of third edition is best known of its volumeous writings by designers trying to make a living. AND, I do "fault" the company for turning the central paradigm of GM and PCs into one where EVERYONE HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE BOOKS. This singluar fact (selling six books to six players is more profitable than selling six books to 1 GM, and 1 book to 5 players) has bothered me grievously over the past nine years. While v.3.5 and Pathfinder is still my game of choice, what I call the "Age Of Third Edition" did give rise to the rules-lawyers (and sometimes they were more deadly to fun than Runelords were to Varisia!).
On several of your other points, however, Fabes - I truly do understand where you are coming from this.
Unfortunately, even while I can admit that 3x did step somewhat more away from Gygaxian play (a fact I must admit for Gygax himself wasn't please with the direction taken when attempting to quantify all the rules), it would seem that now 4e exaults combat (which used to only be part of the game). Combat (the 'ol Chapter 9 or whatever) isn't the sum of dungeons and dragons, and was never meant to ever appear as all of it.
So, we do indeed see a progression... in fact, it makes sense that the wotci (Mairkurion's term for you know who), were intending to make a clean break with 4e and push away from much of any Gygaxian elements. I will never forget hearing how marginalized Gary was at his final Gen Con. Here he was, a man they should have respected as the father of the game, treated like a stranger - - - - until only now, after his death.
But I digress - the "rule of yes" belongs to GMs universally, not any specific edition, and although I can see where the populace was misled by the company that produced 3x, it is no less a viable game for the rule of yes than any other, despite not having that description specified. On the whole, with all the material players had access to over the past nine years - it does not surprise me that the pendulum had shifted toward everyone knowing the rules and weighing-in on the rulings.
Does that sound like a fair or reasonable view to you? In other words, can we reach a quarum that rule of yes belongs to all GMs as a technique of good gameplay not limited by system. If 3.x GMs never used it, perhaps they never learned it or were taught how/what it means...
|
|
more good stuff
Like I mentioned to Tiger Dave in another thread, I agree, I'm old school and DM in that style, the problem is, I have to deal with players who have mostly been weaned on the 3x expectation of gaming. That is, a DM who says "no, there are no tieflings (or dragonborn or cat people - looking at Monte's furry infested books here) in my homebrew" is automatically a fun limiting tool out to keep players from playing whatever they want.
Yes, the 3x DMG explicitly states PrCs are optional, at the sufferance of the DM. Then the company went and published a million books targeted at players full of PrCs.
When marketing interferes with gaming, I have serious issues. I'm actually glad WotC turned me off with their marketing (the game is fine, I just don't want to give Wizards any of my money) and Paizo picked up the gauntlet. I don't have to argue with players about Warlords and Dragonborn and whatnot. Now, I can start fresh, get back to a "core" game (I only have one guy in my group currently (other than me) who owns a bunch of splat books, and he's cool about playing in my comfort zone, so it's a non-issue) and pray Paizo doesn't fall into the same pattern Wizards did with the never ending splats of suck.
I just wish we could get back to a "player" driven game. 2+Int skill points shouldn't be an issue, as the character sheet shouldn't define what a character can and cannot do (within reason). This is just my opinion, but having a number under a skill called "diplomacy" (or any of the 'social' skills, for that matter) rubs me the wrong way. I've seen too many tables where a situation is just resolved by a skill roll, with no effort made to actually persuade anyone of anything. And, before anyone says 'well, they were doing it wrong' or whatever, no, they were doing what the rules said they could do. Nothing in the skill description says the player HAS to act it out...
Meh, I'll stop ranting now.
@Pax, I think my point with the "Rule of Yes" is that 3x changes the assumption that the DM is the judge and jury of the table, and is more just the guy who reads the dice. With all of the character options and character defining skills and feats, there is less for the DM to judge on, and more instances where, by RAW, he is forced to say "no".
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR.
Ironically the seeds of the end of Greyhawks prominence are, arguably anyway, planted by Mr. Gygax himself. Mr. Gygax gave the go ahead to develop a super campaign that would focus on Dragons and tapped Tracy Hickman to develop it. The result, Dragonlance, had a pretty profound impact on all future developments and regulated Greyhawk to the status of TSR's (and later WotCs) red headed step child from that point on.
Personally I feel that the introduction of Dragonlance into 1E was more important then the conversion of the game to 2E in terms of how the game evolved away from the classic look and feel of old style D&D. Almost everything we see in 2nd beyond some pretty minor mechanical changes stems from trends that really took off with the introduction of Dragonlance.
|
|
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR.Ironically the seeds of the end of Greyhawks prominence are, arguably anyway, planted by Mr. Gygax himself. Mr. Gygax gave the go ahead to develop a super campaign that would focus on Dragons and tapped Tracy Hickman to develop it. The result, Dragonlance, had a pretty profound impact on all future developments and regulated Greyhawk to the status of TSR's (and later WotCs) red headed step child from that point on.
And so the seeds for the destruction of TSR, and the shrinking of the hobby sewn.
Sorry, I hate DL and everything it stands for.
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR.Ironically the seeds of the end of Greyhawks prominence are, arguably anyway, planted by Mr. Gygax himself. Mr. Gygax gave the go ahead to develop a super campaign that would focus on Dragons and tapped Tracy Hickman to develop it. The result, Dragonlance, had a pretty profound impact on all future developments and regulated Greyhawk to the status of TSR's (and later WotCs) red headed step child from that point on.
And so the seeds for the destruction of TSR, and the shrinking of the hobby sewn.
Sorry, I hate DL and everything it stands for.
What are your feelings regarding I6: Ravenloft?
|
|
What are your feelings regarding I6: Ravenloft?
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR.Ironically the seeds of the end of Greyhawks prominence are, arguably anyway, planted by Mr. Gygax himself. Mr. Gygax gave the go ahead to develop a super campaign that would focus on Dragons and tapped Tracy Hickman to develop it. The result, Dragonlance, had a pretty profound impact on all future developments and regulated Greyhawk to the status of TSR's (and later WotCs) red headed step child from that point on.
And so the seeds for the destruction of TSR, and the shrinking of the hobby sewn.
Sorry, I hate DL and everything it stands for.
Read my above comment about vampires. Should give you a clue ;)
|
"Working feverishly to keep ahead of the eager players, I created levels of the Greyhawk Castle dungeons at a rate of one a week. ... I populated levels hastily, generally without regard for 'ecology,' with an aim toward challenge, surprise, and diversity. ... The key was to make the encounter fun." (Gary Gygax, in Dragon #287, p. 26)
Even so, a Gygax with "generally no regard for ecology" would still be a Gygax that is mindful of the principles he created. I hate presto creeps and always will.
Reminds me of:
"Here! Have some of these!"
|
|
Hey Zux!
Houstonderek - I can say from experience that the Dragonlance series did bring a different flavor to the game, with the kender that changed the way little folks were seen forever, right? But I did enjoy the starcharts, worldbuilding, wedding songs, character cards, 3-d maps, full page biographies for NPCs/PCs, sexy Goldmoon, the 3-page-fold out module GM screens with combined monster statistics chart, concise module verbiage, canticles, art, and module sections divided as "chapters" along with a good epilogue.
The truth is, I think we played through a lot of these back in 1984. And, frankly, hell... anything was good back in 1984. That year was the bomb! But I respect that you didn't like DL and will leave it at that.
I am forced to point out the marvelous things Tracy and Laura did with Ravenloft. Man - just holding that module in our hands the first time felt special. Then we played it! We were blown away by the demi-plane, the fog, madame Eva the fortune teller and we loved the hell out of castle ravenloft. As I recall one of our characters eventually became the Baron of Barovia after Strahd's defeat. Good shi!, man! That module changed the way many of us even thought about the game! That module really, truly opened our minds up to so much possibility in ways that some of the original game content, although it meant to, just never really brought that stuff home.
Ravenloft - that module is truly a timeless "classic."
I think that what I miss most about the "old school" DnD is the openess of interpretation that many of the posters here have touched on regarding the rules.
I had no idea about Greyhawk or any other setting back then as I had always played in homebrew games. It seems that over time, the game as a whole has become less and less about the DM and more about the player. The styles of play from a players perspective have increased greatly while the role of the DM has been reduced. In many ways, especially in 4th, the DM is really just a dice roller for the monsters. Gygax's ideas of DnD were heavily based on the DM being a story teller. It's a hard balance to have mechanics and story at the same time.
In short, it would seem that the art of DMing is a dying one where the rules take over and creativity becomes redundant.
*don's tin hat in expectation of upsetting 4th ED lurkers* :)
|
|
*don's tin hat in expectation of upsetting 4th ED lurkers* :)
I didn't like the DL adventures series BUT I like the DL Adventures rulebook! Having to decide on alignment for your cleric or magic-user and having it effect basically everything you do - timeless. However I know many old schoolers would burn me at the stake for saying this. And as for Ravenloft, well it was a defining moment in roleplaying history. Massive story combined with a vampire hunter and good old fashioned hack'n'slash. <Sigh>, those were the days.
As to Tronos comment above, well 4e for all its wrongs has gone back to "DM just make it up" of OD&D/1e AD&D. Perhaps as you pointed out 2e/3e were killing the DM ability to say "because I said it does" under a tonne of rules that stated the DM couldn't. 3e is a great unified system, its like someone found the roleplaying Higgs-Boson particle and roleplaying Relatively now agrees with roleplaying Quantum Mechanics - but perhaps (just saying) roleplaying doesn't need to be unified. Perhaps mysteries (meaning no specific rule) is fine?
1e AD&D and 4e both have monsters that from a players point of view you can't understand why they do X or Y based on the players handbook. They just do. 2e and furthered by 3e everything can be explained from the ground up - again does a game taking place in your imagination need this?
By profession in RL I'm a scientist - and 3e REALLY appeals to that part of me - internal consistency, however 1e AD&D and more lately 4e REALLY appeals to the story teller in me.
S.
I totally agree with the above. It doesn't really matter what iteration of the game you play as long as you enjoy it and I'm positive that it's still possible to tell a story using 4th.
Still, I think it's central to the discussion that the idea of Gygaxian Naturalism is present in a DnD product. Some components of the 4th ed system (such as combat roles) seem designed to make sense only from a mechanics point of view while not leaving much to that Gygaxian theme. 3rd could be accused of this too, I believe, although it feels like it was more to aid the roleplaying aspect rather than hinder it. Having said that, 3rd ed definitely has it's own sluggish crunch, especially at the higher levels.
Interesting to note how many of the 3.0 heads here regard AD&D as being the pinnacle.
In my opinion, a game without a sense of Gygaxianness (made that word up)ceases to be a proper RPG and starts to become a glorified chess board. Someone here stated that the OD&D was based on wargaming. I disagree with this idea. It had elements but it's the story telling, and a sense of being the protagonists in that story, that really set OD&D apart.
All this edition stuff really just points to a shifting of the spectrum. I'm sure that GG's ideas and contributions will always be a part of the DnD landscape somewhere.
Oh the endless "Gamist vs Simulationist" debate.
Personally I have nothing against 4E, and it's pretty fun, but I stick to d20 because it's more freeform-oriented, and my gaming table is all about freeforming.
However, while Monsters Revisited and other Pathfinder Chronicles/Companion books are made of pure win, I would -not- use Pathfinder as a polar example of "simulationist" to compare against 4E's "gamist" nature given how they share a big gamist trait in common such as a full reliance in plot devices. Can a Pathfinder's PC build magic cities? Bring an asteroid down? Things like "Aboleth magic" and "Rune magic" are euphemisms for plot devices which, in my opinion, are one of the strongest (if not the strongest) trait of Gamist-oriented design (by "gamist" be understood something that works just because the game says so).
Actually, Pathfinder and 4E have more things in common than one would imagine at first.
Actually, Pathfinder and 4E have more things in common than one would imagine at first.
"Pitchforks and torches fer sale! Getcher pitchforks and torches!"
|
|
Actually, Pathfinder and 4E have more things in common than one would imagine at first.
Couldn't more agree, mechanics are just after all window dressing. What matters is the feel of the game and that depends on the people playing.
1e AD&D will always hold a special place, it was the Alpha. Interesting the shift on this thread from 4e is evil and bad to perhaps the more considered stance collectively we have arrived at. See even after passing on Gygax continues to improve the roleplaying community! All we needed to do was take stock and say hey neither 3e or 4e are Gygaxian truth be told!
S.
|
|
Actually, Pathfinder and 4E have more things in common than one would imagine at first.Couldn't more agree, mechanics are just after all window dressing. What matters is the feel of the game and that depends on the people playing.
1e AD&D will always hold a special place, it was the Alpha. Interesting the shift on this thread from 4e is evil and bad to perhaps the more considered stance collectively we have arrived at. See even after passing on Gygax continues to improve the roleplaying community! All we needed to do was take stock and say hey neither 3e or 4e are Gygaxian truth be told!
S.
I agree, there is nothing particularly "Gygaxian" about 3x or 4e. Or Pathfinder, for that matter. All of them reject, to one degree or another, that there is anything beyond the character. It almost seemed that 1e rejected the idea that the characters were the most important thing in the milieu, that is, until Hickman laid the groundwork for 2e.
|
|
An interesting quandry... and I will give this the thought it deserves without rushing to validate these recent arguments. In a nut-shell, I am finding that heindsight is delivering some clarity on this past decade, and am intrigued at the contrast provided by 4e that seems to shed some light on 3e.
And in other words, I am hard-presssed to disagree with just how amazing first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons actually was, especially in heindsight.
I am also not ready to overlook the amazing strides 3.0/3.5/3.75 have taken toward the refinement of a unified, extensible, sophisticated ruleset that includes the most prolific evolutionary and revolutionary developments in nearly every aspect of the game.
I didn't like the DL adventures series BUT I like the DL Adventures rulebook! Having to decide on alignment for your cleric or magic-user and having it effect basically everything you do - timeless. However I know many old schoolers would burn me at the stake for saying this. And as for Ravenloft, well it was a defining moment in roleplaying history. Massive story combined with a vampire hunter and good old fashioned hack'n'slash. <Sigh>, those were the days.As to Tronos comment above, well 4e for all its wrongs has gone back to "DM just make it up" of OD&D/1e AD&D. Perhaps as you pointed out 2e/3e were killing the DM ability to say "because I said it does" under a tonne of rules that stated the DM couldn't. 3e is a great unified system, its like someone found the roleplaying Higgs-Boson particle and roleplaying Relatively now agrees with roleplaying Quantum Mechanics - but perhaps (just saying) roleplaying doesn't need to be unified. Perhaps mysteries (meaning no specific rule) is fine?
S.
In regards to the Dragonlance modules I'm going to agree that as a full campaign it was painfully railroady. Unusably so in my opinion. I've met a lot of DMs that started the series and very few that ever completed it. That said I really think the adventures themselves where, on average, masterpieces. Almost every one of them focused on something that was really interesting be it descents to a sunken city through sewers and buildings that had been flipped over or infiltrating a fortress to initiate a slave revolt or even holding a choke point against an invading army spear headed by Evil Dragons. The sheer level of 'epic' was not achieved again, IMO, until the latter stages of the Age of Worms AP. I've torn elements from the DL modules for many a campaign over the years and am rarely disappointed. I feel the DL modules along with I6: Ravenloft really raised the bar and pushed the boundaries of D&D and in so doing truly opened up the game to a different view of playing. A view that maybe was intended by its creators all along but simply had never been supported by the actual material and hence was simply not known to those that learned the game by reading the rules and playing the modules.
In regards to 2nd being a game where the players told the DM how it was going to be - I really have to disagree with a major caveat. 2nd edition, in my view followed along with the trends put forward by the introduction of products like Dragonlance. More so then any other edition it moved out of the dungeon and started to explore heavily story orientated gaming. This theme was very clear in Dungeon Magazine at the time but also was supported by all the campaigns that came out during the era, very few of which really focused on classical dungeons. I don't really see how that supports the idea that the DM had some how lost control of the game - in many ways I think the DM had actually grown in power with the edition switch because he was no longer judging what happened in the evil dank dungeon but was now in control of things like the weather in Athas or the evil influences the players would be plagued by in Ravenloft or whether or not the players Spelljammer ship would be attacked by pirates and what kind of pirates they would be. In essence the edition made the DM not the controller of the monsters in the dungeon or consultant of the wandering monster tables in Isle of the Ape but fate itself who decided if Dragon Kings guards noticed you or not or if you could talk your way out of some kind of scrape in the city at the centre of the multiverse. Catacombs, the 'how to be a DM' book of the edition had whole section on when and how the DM ought to cheat in order to further the drama of the game and argued against the whole idea of 'player vs. DM' gaming.
Hence I think 2nd edition, far from putting the players in control actually shifted power away from the player and into the DMs hands in a much more explicit manner then 1st edition did. My big caveat would be the introduction of Skills and Powers which dramatically did the opposite - but those supplements came pretty late in the editions cycle when the game itself was clearly in serous decline and they had very little support (how many products came out actually utilizing those rules?). I think judging 2nd based on Skills and Powers is akin to judging 3rd on the basis of Tomb of Battle. Doing so gives one a very skewed impression of the edition.
This is one of the coolest discussions at the moment on the boards. I know that you don't (and wouldn't) subscribe to the online Dragon and Dungeon, Pax, but I think you would approve of a) the sheer amount of world-building and story info that a lot of the articles have and b) the many columns that talk about story-telling, free-forming, and ensuring things are fair and fun for players.
Or, as Old Geezer says on RPGNet, "Make some sh!t up you think will be fun"
(see my Swords and Wizardry PbP for plenty of the latter) :D
It almost seemed that 1e rejected the idea that the characters were the most important thing in the milieu, that is, until Hickman laid the groundwork for 2e.
We must be on some kind of a roll. Again I very much agree. Bringing this, at least for a moment, back around to the OP I'd say that one of the fundamental ways one achieves Gygaxian Naturalism is to essentially let go of all the story orientated tropes introduced to the game starting in the latter stages of 1st edition and returning to a game where the goal of the DM is to make the players focus on the authenticity of the world.
In many ways I think that this stands in juxtaposition with the idea of 'just say yes'. The problem with 'just say yes' in regards to a question like 'can my fighter drop kick the kobold?' is that it violates the kobolds 'rights'. You can't arbitrarily drop kick the kobold for the same reason as he can't arbitrarily punch you in the gnads. Both the players and the NPCs (even kobolds) are organic parts of the world and they enjoy the same ability to bend reality to their whim for story reasons or just because its cool...which usually means not much ability at all. If you want to walk across the desert you bring plenty of water because there is no free pass that lets you automatically presume that a traveling caravan will find you if you start to die of thirst.
And so the seeds for the destruction of TSR, and the shrinking of the hobby sewn.Sorry, I hate DL and everything it stands for.
What are your feelings regarding I6: Ravenloft?
Read my above comment about vampires. Should give you a clue ;)
I asked because I think I6: Ravenloft is the actual turning point in regards to old style AD&D and the story heavy player centred version that eventually evolved. Dragonlance is the obvious break point but by the time its out the die has been cast. Ravenloft, uniquely in my opinion, exists right at the point where the old style Gygaxian Naturalist version of AD&D begins to evolve into the new style story orientated player centred version of the game. For old timers considering ones own views regarding Ravenloft might prove to be an interesting thought exercise in terms of contemplating ones views in terms of the evolution of the game.
I'd especially consider comparing and contrasting this with a Gygaxian masterpiece like Tomb of Horrors and modern adventures clearly influenced by Ravenloft such as Curse of the Crimson Throne (especially the first four parts of that AP).
|
|
stuff about 2e
Of all the editions 2e is the one in number of years I have played the most regularly. The core books were indeed fun to play, but when the "complete" books came out you had "roles" defined, oh look I'm a pirate and I get X skills and Y bonuses. This was a move away from the 1e AD&D I'm a pirate - why? Well I have a parrot and an eye patch <arrrhh!>. 2e was the first attempt to codify things perhaps to allow tournament play? This lead to the "rules lawyer" (or at least it's when I first heard the term), and 3e continued the tradition to the nth degree. But if I had to play D&D with an unknown DM and unknown other players I would choose 3e - I know where I stand as its spelled out from player & DM in a more rigorous fashion.
Which brings me to why I agree that 3-->3.5-->pathfinder is so great, it is D&D with no holds barred, true freedom. But I'll add again, not the game that Gygax designed AD&D to be - but it shouldn't have to be of course. Clerics other than human or NPC demi-humans, are you kidding me? They do not exist!
Kicking kobolds in the nadds, well in 1e AD&D; hmmm how about roll to hit AC 4 (small but soft target) and then the kobold saves vs paralysis? Not saying you can't do this in 3e (fort save?) but it I would venture is a little more difficult to "explain" rules wise. Somehow to me in 1e it feels right, in 3e I would be looking for nadd kicking rules...
Crazy thing is about this thread now is that there appears to be an overwhelming desire for 1e AD&D by Gary Gygax to see the light of day yet again!
Right you have all convinced me to run Ravenloft (again) in the original 1e AD&D of course.
S.
PS: Glad we have moved away from edition A is better than edition B b+~%+#%s, makes for far more interesting reading.